EPYC 7302 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9550
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.47
EPYC 7302
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
20.84
+1318%

EPYC 7302 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a whopping 1318% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2158261
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data11.06
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)AMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.4612.72
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$978

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speedno data3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.83 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
Multiplierno data30
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache12288 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302 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 configurationno data2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketLGA775TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 and EPYC 7302. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1,DDR2,DDR3DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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
EPYC 7302 20.84
+1318%

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
EPYC 7302 33106
+1316%

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
EPYC 7302 1209
+227%

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 1038
EPYC 7302 8691
+737%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.47 20.84
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 155 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9550 has 63.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7302, on the other hand, has a 1317.7% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7302 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7302 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7302, 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
AMD EPYC 7302
EPYC 7302

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 1865 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 30 votes

Rate EPYC 7302 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 EPYC 7302, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.