Phenom X4 9550 vs Athlon X2 QL-64
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 2430 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | 2x AMD Athlon | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.04 |
| Architecture codename | Lion (2008−2009) | Agena (2007−2008) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) | March 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 285 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 450 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550 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 | S1 | AM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| PowerNow | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 95 Watt |
Athlon X2 QL-64 has 171.4% lower power consumption.
Phenom X4 9550, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon X2 QL-64 is a notebook processor while Phenom X4 9550 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X2 QL-64 and Phenom X4 9550, 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.
