Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs FX-8350

Aggregate performance score

FX-8350
2012
8 cores / 8 threads, 125 Watt
3.74
+154%
Core 2 Quad Q9550
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.47

FX-8350 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-8350 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14852170
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.88no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD FX-Series (Desktop)Core 2 Quad (Desktop)
Power efficiency2.831.46
Architecture codenameVishera (2012−2015)Yorkfield (2007−2009)
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$199no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

FX-8350 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed4.2 GHz2.83 GHz
Bus rateno data1333 MHz
L1 cacheno data64K (per core)
L2 cache8192 KB12288 KB
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size315 mm22x 107 mm2
Maximum core temperature61 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data71 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million820 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
P0 Vcore voltageMin: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 Vno data

Compatibility

Information on FX-8350 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)125 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4a, AMD64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, CLMUL, CVT16, EVP, FMA4, XOP, Turbo Core, HT3.1no data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1,DDR2,DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-8350 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550.

PCIe versionn/ano 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-8350 3.74
+154%
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-8350 5936
+154%
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-8350 487
+31.6%
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-8350 1983
+91%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 1038

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.

FX-8350 3201
+3.1%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 3106

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

FX-8350 16904
+56.2%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 10825

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.

FX-8350 6648
+57.2%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 4230

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

FX-8350 7
+103%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 3

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.74 1.47
Physical cores 8 4
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 95 Watt

FX-8350 has a 154.4% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Quad Q9550, on the other hand, has 31.6% lower power consumption.

The FX-8350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-8350 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-8350
FX-8350
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.


4.2 3737 votes

Rate FX-8350 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-8350 or Core 2 Quad Q9550, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.