Celeron E1500 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q9550 outperforms Celeron E1500 by a whopping 277% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2170 | 3016 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 0.57 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Allendale (2006−2009) |
| Release date | no data | November 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $63 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 512 KB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 2x 107 mm2 | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 73 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 820 million | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.5V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500 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 | LGA775 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron E1500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | 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 | 1.47 | 0.39 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550 has a 276.9% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron E1500, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Core 2 Quad Q9550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E1500 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron E1500, 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.
