Celeron B815 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9550
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.47
+220%
Celeron B815
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.46

Core 2 Quad Q9550 outperforms Celeron B815 by a whopping 220% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21712939
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)Intel Celeron
Power efficiency1.461.24
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release dateno data1 January 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speedno data1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.83 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rate1333 MHz4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data16
L1 cache64K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache12288 KB256K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2131 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors820 million504 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketLGA775FCPGA988,PGA988
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1,DDR2,DDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors
Graphics max frequencyno data1.05 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVOno data+
CRTno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron B815.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 1.47
+220%
Celeron B815 0.46

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 2338
+220%
Celeron B815 731

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 370
+52.3%
Celeron B815 243

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.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 1039
+152%
Celeron B815 413

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 3106
+48.4%
Celeron B815 2093

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 10825
+169%
Celeron B815 4029

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Core 2 Quad Q9550 4230
+157%
Celeron B815 1645

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.47 0.46
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9550 has a 219.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron B815, on the other hand, has a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q9550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B815 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while Celeron B815 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron B815, 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.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Core 2 Quad Q9550
Intel Celeron B815
Celeron B815

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.


4.1 1877 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 251 vote

Rate Celeron B815 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9550 or Celeron B815, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.