Celeron M 530 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9550
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.46
+668%
Celeron M 530
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.19

Core 2 Quad Q9550 outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 668% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21773255
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Celeron M
Power efficiency1.470.60
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Merom (2006−2008)
Release dateno datano data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads41
Base clock speedno data1.73 GHz
Boost clock speed2.83 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHz533 MHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache12288 KBno data
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors820 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.95V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1no data
SocketLGA775PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.

VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1,DDR2,DDR3no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 1.46
+668%
Celeron M 530 0.19

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 2339
+675%
Celeron M 530 302

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 3106
+92.3%
Celeron M 530 1615

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 4230
+472%
Celeron M 530 739

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.46 0.19
Physical cores 4 1
Threads 4 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 30 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9550 has a 668.4% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 530, on the other hand, has 216.7% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q9550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 530 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 530 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron M 530, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Core 2 Quad Q9550
Intel Celeron M 530
Celeron M 530

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 1878 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron M 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9550 or Celeron M 530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.