Core 2 Quad Q9550 vs Xeon W3520
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W3520 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1891 | 2052 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.11 | 2.80 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Core 2 Quad (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | March 2009 (15 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $404 | no data |
| Current price | $70 (0.2x MSRP) | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W3520 has 11% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q9550.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad 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 | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 2.83 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 12288 KB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad 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 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad Q9550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 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 Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3520 and Core 2 Quad Q9550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1,DDR2,DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | 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.
Xeon W3520 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 26% based on our aggregate 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%
Xeon W3520 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 25% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon W3520 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 13% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon W3520 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9550 by 36% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.90 | 1.51 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
The Xeon W3520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W3520 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q9550 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3520 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.
