EPYC 7H12 vs Core 2 Quad Q9550

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9550
4 cores / 4 threads
1.51
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads
45.03
+2882%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 2882% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking202139
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money2.8022.30
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesCore 2 Quad (Desktop)AMD EPYC
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release dateno data18 September 2019 (4 years ago)
Current price$54 $1970

Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7H12 has 696% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q9550.

Technical specs

Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12 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)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads4128
Base clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.83 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support1333 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache12288 KB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data256 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 multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12 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 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
AVXno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12. 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 supportno data+

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 1.51
EPYC 7H12 45.03
+2882%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 2882% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Core 2 Quad Q9550 2340
EPYC 7H12 69633
+2876%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 2876% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.51 45.03
Physical cores 4 64
Threads 4 128
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 280 Watt

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9550 and EPYC 7H12, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

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 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 1795 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9550 or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.