Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs Athlon II X4 740
Aggregate performance score
Athlon II X4 740 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II X4 740 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2066 | 2170 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Athlon | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.46 |
| Architecture codename | Piledriver | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (12 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $71 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II X4 740 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.83 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 12288 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 107 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 820 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II X4 740 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | Socket FM2 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 740 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 740 and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 |
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 | 1.69 | 1.47 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Athlon II X4 740 has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Athlon II X4 740 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II X4 740 and Core 2 Quad Q9550, 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.
