Athlon XP 1700+ vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2121 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) |
| Release date | no data | October 2001 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 1.47 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Die size | no data | 150 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 37 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | A |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 64 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | no 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.
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
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 64 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon XP 1700+, on the other hand, has 48.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Athlon XP 1700+, 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.
