EPYC 9474F vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9474F outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a whopping 4397% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2158 | 11 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.29 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.46 | 17.38 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,780 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 52,560 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F 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 configuration | no data | 2 |
| Socket | LGA775 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 9474F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 66.11 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 48 |
| Threads | 4 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 360 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 278.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9474F, on the other hand, has a 4397.3% higher aggregate performance score, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9474F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9474F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 9474F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
