Phenom II X4 910e vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9550 outperforms Phenom II X4 910e by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2155 | 2242 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.09 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 1.96 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 25 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $157 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 258 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e 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 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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 | 1.48 | 1.35 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550 has a 9.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Phenom II X4 910e, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Phenom II X4 910e, 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.
