Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs FX-6100

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6100
2011
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.32
+57.8%
Core 2 Quad Q9550
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.47

FX-6100 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18102171
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Seriesno dataCore 2 Quad (Desktop)
Power efficiency2.311.46
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Yorkfield (2007−2009)
Release date12 October 2011 (13 years ago)no data

Detailed specifications

FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads64
Base clock speed3.3 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz2.83 GHz
Bus rateno data1333 MHz
L1 cache288 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache6 MB12288 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm22x 107 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million820 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 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 configuration11
SocketAM3+LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1,DDR2,DDR3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

FX-6100 2.32
+57.8%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 1.47

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.

FX-6100 3692
+57.9%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 2338

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

FX-6100 384
+3.8%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 370

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

FX-6100 1232
+18.6%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 1039

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.32 1.47
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 6 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm

FX-6100 has a 57.8% higher aggregate performance score, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6100 and Core 2 Quad Q9550, 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.


AMD FX-6100
FX-6100
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Core 2 Quad Q9550

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.

Community ratings

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


3.8 1117 votes

Rate FX-6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 1877 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6100 or Core 2 Quad Q9550, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.