Celeron N2815 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2125 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.48 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | no data | 1 December 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 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 | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 12288 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 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.
| Socket | LGA775 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 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 N2815. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 | DDR3L-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 756 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and Celeron N2815.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 7 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron N2815, on the other hand, has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1257.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron N2815. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while Celeron N2815 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Celeron N2815, 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.
