Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs Ryzen 3 1300X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 1300X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a whopping 198% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1335 | 2149 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.28 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 6.40 | 1.47 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 27 July 2017 (7 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.83 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 1333 MHz |
| Multiplier | 34 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 12288 KB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 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 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad (Desktop) Q9550.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no 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.
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.
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.
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
| Performance score | 4.56 | 1.53 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Ryzen 3 1300X has a 198% higher aggregate performance score, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 1300X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 1300X and Core 2 Quad Q9550, 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.
