Celeron 7305 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Aggregate performance score
Celeron 7305 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2155 | 2108 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 9.78 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Alder Lake-U (2022) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 23 February 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 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) | 5 (Penta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 5 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 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 | FCBGA1744 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200, LPDDR5-5200, LPDDR4x-4267 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® UHD Graphics for 12th Gen Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.1 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 48 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron 7305.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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 | 1.50 | 1.58 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 5 |
| Threads | 4 | 5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron 7305 has a 5.3% higher aggregate performance score, 25% more physical cores and 25% more threads, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron 7305.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while Celeron 7305 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron 7305, 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.
