Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE
2019
4 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
4.24
+188%
Core 2 Quad Q9550
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.47

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking13712158
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 3Core 2 Quad (Desktop)
Power efficiency11.461.46
Architecture codenamePicasso (2019−2022)Yorkfield (2007−2009)
Release date30 September 2019 (5 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed3.3 GHzno data
Boost clock speed4 GHz2.83 GHz
Bus typePCIe 3.0no data
Bus rateno data1333 MHz
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache96 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache512 KB (per core)12288 KB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography12 nm45 nm
Die size210 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)95 °Cno data
Number of transistors4,940 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketAM4LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR1,DDR2,DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon Vega 8no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no 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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 4.24
+188%
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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 6738
+188%
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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 1084
+193%
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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 3056
+194%
Core 2 Quad Q9550 1038

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.24 1.47
Chip lithography 12 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 95 Watt

Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE has a 188.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 275% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE 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 Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE
Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE
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 95 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 1865 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 Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE or Core 2 Quad Q9550, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.