AMD PHENOM 9550 vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 – 3DMark Bench Results
I ran many of the legacy Futuremark 3DMark benchmark software. They were very popular in their day and could really stress the GPU and CPU using the latest features and/or instructions of the time. Using a mid-range video card that’s a bit newer than these versions were released should help make the CPU more-so the bottleneck.
*As a side note, you can download all of these legacy 3DMark versions and more at Futuremark’s webpage by clicking on this link. They also give you serial numbers to unlock the software to full versions.
I ran all of the software at their default settings and test features even though I had them unlocked into full versions.
3DMark 2001se uses the DX 8 API’s and added DX 8.1 API features over the previous non-SE version. The first Direct X 8 API accelerated video cards were the GeForce 3 series released February 2001. ATI later released the ATI Radeon 8500 in October of 2001. In August 2002 the first mainstream DX 8.1 capable card in the Radeon 9000/Pro was released.
I remember buying a $99 (I think) Black Friday special for the VisionTek GeForce 3 Ti 200 at Best Buy to replace my Inno3D GeForce 2 MX 128-bit 32 MB with S-Video TV output. I bought the VisionTek GeForce 3 Ti 200 for my Epox 8KHA+ and Athlon 1.0c “AXIA” @ 1.5 GHz setup of the time. Anyways…
| Processor | % of Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | % of Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) | Par | -13.19% | -16.39% | -30.69% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) | +15.18% | Par | -3.69% | -20.16% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) | +19.59% | +03.82% | Par | -17.11% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) | +44.27% | +25.25% | +12.64% | Par |
In 3DMark 2001se, stock for stock the Q6600 has a large lead of almost +20%. Even adding an extra 460 MHz to the Phenom for 2640 MHz total it loses to the stock Q6600 by +3.8%. The 3.0 GHz Q6600 has a strong +25% lead over the overlocked Ph9550.
| Processor ↓ | Compared to Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz | Compared C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz | Par (3DMark Score: 55,645) | -9.73% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz | +10.78% | Par (3DMark Score: 57,568) |
Clock for clock the Core 2 has around an 11% lead over the Phenom. This bench should not be at all GPU bound and more relying on the CPU and sub-system. The Q6600 has a good lead clock for clock.
3DMark 2003 added Direct X 9.0 API support. Along with the Total or 3DMark score they added a new CPU test and score.
The first video cards to provide complete, as well as properly implemented support for DX 9 were the ATI Radeon 9700 (Pro and non-Pro) and Radeon 9500 (Pro and non-Pro) GPUs. Nvidia some months later released the FX 5800 (Ultra and non-Ultra). But the DX 9.0 implementation was not well done and didn’t include all the features if I remember correctly. The Ultra especially ran very hot and very loud basically because NVIDIA clocked the core way beyond TSMC’s brand new 130nm (.13µ) process current capabilities to try and compete with the Radeon 9700 cards. The GeForce 6000 series fixed all the issues and were very competitive cards.
| Processor | % of Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | % of Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) | Par | CPU: -11.22% 3DMark: -06.24% | CPU: -12.65% 3DMark: -08.80% | CPU: -30.27% 3DMark: -15.82% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) | CPU: +12.64% 3DMark: +06.65% | Par | CPU: -01.60% 3DMark: -02.73% | CPU: -21.45% 3DMark: -10.22% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) | CPU: +14.49% 3DMark: +09.65% | CPU: +01.63% 3DMark: +02.81% | Par | CPU: -20.16% 3DMark: -07.70% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) | CPU: +43.40% 3DMark: +18.80% | CPU: +27.30% 3DMark: +11.92% | CPU: +25.26% 3DMark: +08.34% | Par |
Using the total or 3DMark score the Q6600 has about a +9.5% lead stock for stock. Like before, even the overclocked Phenom can’t overcome the stock Q6600. The overclocked C2Q again has a double digit lead over all the other scores with +11.4% over the overlocked Ph9550. The CPU specific test has the stock Q6600 +14.4% faster than the Ph9550 and the overclocked Q6600 a large +27% higher score than the overlocked Phenom.
| Processor ↓ | Compared to Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz | Compared C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz | Par (CPU Score: 1,684) Par (3DMark Score: 55,645) | CPU: -4.31% 3DMark: -3.34% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz | CPU:+4.51% 3DMark: +3.45% | Par (CPU Score: 1,760) Par (3DMark Score: 57,568) |
The Phenom does fairly well here when clocked the same. The Core 2 has a smallish +4.5% lead in CPU and +3.4% lead in the total score.
3DMark 2005 added support for the additional features of Direct X 9.0c.
| Processor | % of Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | % of Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) | Par Par | 3DMark: -15.33% CPU: -14.34% | 3DMark: -0.06% CPU: +0.091% | 3DMark: -24.07% CPU: -19.25% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) | 3DMark: +18.11% CPU: +16.74% | Par | 3DMark: +10.18% CPU: +17.81% | 3DMark: -10.32% CPU: -5.73% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) | 3DMark: +7.20% CPU: -0.91% | 3DMark: -09.24% CPU: -15.11% | Par | 3DMark: -18.61% CPU: -19.98% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) | 3DMark: +31.71% CPU: +23.84% | 3DMark: +11.51% CPU: +6.08% | 3DMark: +22.86% CPU: +24.97% | Par |
In 3DMark 2005 the Phenom fairs much better. In fact under the CPU test the stock Phenom beats the stock C2Q by +1% even with a 200 MHz disadvantage. And this time the overclocked Ph9550 has no problem beating the stock C2Q in either test. Under the total score the Q6600 does take a +7.2% lead over the stock Ph9550 though. The overclocked C2Q 6600 again has no problems taking the lead.
| Processor ↓ | Compared to Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz | Compared to C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz | Par (3DMark Score: 15,263) Par (CPU Score: 16,351) | 3DMark: +1.76% CPU: +8.66% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz | 3DMark: -1.73% CPU: -7.97% | Par (3DMark Score: 14,998) Par (CPU Score: 15,048) |
The Phenom takes the lead clock for clock. In both tests the Ph9550 is faster. By +8.6% in the CPU portion and +1.7 in the overall score.
| Processor | Compared to Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | Compared to Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | Compared to C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | Compared to C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) is | Par (0.0%) | 3DMark: -14.82% CPU: -15.50% HDR: -14.56% | 3DMark: -10.60% CPU: -10.24% HDR: -9.29% | 3DMark: -26.81% CPU: -27.95% HDR: -24.88% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) is | 3DMark: +17.40% CPU: +18.34% HDR: +17.04% | Par (0.0%) | 3DMark: +4.96% CPU: +6.22% HDR: +6.17% | 3DMark: -14.08% CPU: -14.74% HDR: -12.08% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) is | 3DMark: +11.84% CPU: +11.40% HDR: +10.24% | 3DMark: -4.73% CPU: -5.85% HDR: -5.81% | Par (0.0%) | 3DMark: -18.14% CPU: -19.73% HDR: -17.20% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) is | 3DMark: +36.64% CPU: +38.80% HDR: +33.13% | 3DMark: +16.40% CPU: +17.30% HDR: +13.74% | 3DMark: +22.17% CPU: +24.59% HDR: +20.76% | Par (0.0%) |
Again in each score the Q6600 is faster than the Ph9550. The overclocked Phenom is faster than the stock Q6600 in every test of this bench. Of course, the overclocked Q6600 is a great deal faster than everything else. The CPU test has the Q6600 almost 40% faster with a 35% clock speed advantage over the par CPU (Phenom 9550 2.2 GHz).
| Processor ↓ | Compared to Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz | Compared to C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz is: | Par (3DMark Score: 11,960) Par (CPU Score: 3,059) Par (HDR Score: 6,230) | 3DMark: -2.96% CPU: -2.14% HDR: -2.29% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz is: | 3DMark: +3.05% CPU: +2.20% HDR: +2.34% | Par (3DMark Score: 12,325) Par (CPU Score: 3,126) Par (HDR Score: 6,376) |
The Core 2 has a small lead in all 3 tests. Really only +2-3% in each test. So very close to each other.
3DMark Vantage
The Vantage version was brought out for the Vista operating system. Vantage takes advantage of the new Direct X 10.0 API’s of the time. Microsoft never back ported Direct X 10.0 to Windows XP and older. NVidia was the first to make Direct X 10 capable video cards. ATI/AMD then made the first Direct X 10.1 GPU afterwards. You would have needed an NVidia GeForce 8000/9000 Series (DX 10.0) or ATI 2000 Series (DX 10.0) and 3000 Series (10.1) graphic card for compatibility.
The Ati Radeon 2900XT series was a bust. On paper it should have been a beast. It had 320 stream processors and the first 512-bit memory bus. But it was slow, power hungry and warm. The 8K series from nVidia had no issues taking the Radeon 2000 series down.
| Processor | % of Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | % of Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) | Par | 3DMark: -10.33% GPU: -6.95% CPU: -15.20% | 3DMark: -7.13% GPU: -3.65% CPU: -12.14% | 3DMark: -19.17% GPU: -11.93% CPU: -29.58% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) | 3DMark: +11.52% GPU: +07.47% CPU: +17.91% | Par | 3DMark: +3.56% GPU: +3.54% CPU: +3.60% | 3DMark: -9.86% GPU: -5.35% CPU: -16.97% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) | 3DMark: +07.60% GPU: +03.79% CPU: +13.81% | 3DMark: -3.44% GPU: -3.42% CPU: -3.47% | Par | 3DMark: -12.96% GPU: -8.60% CPU: -19.85% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) | 3DMark: +23.72% GPU: +13.55% CPU: +42.02% | 3DMark: +10.94% GPU: +5.65% CPU: +20.44% | 3DMark: +14.90% GPU: +9.40% CPU: +24.77% | Par |
As probably expected, the stock Q6600 had no issues outperforming the stock Ph9550. The Total result: +7.6%, GPU: +3.79%, and CPU result with a double digit advantage almost +14%. The overclocked Phenom overcomes the stock 6600 around +3.4% in each test but loses big to the overclock 6600 in the Total and CPU tests. Both overclocked CPU’s had strong increases in the CPU tests compared to stock. The Q6600 had a big increase of +24% over stock with the Core, Ram, FSB, and Memory controller clock speed all increased by 25%.
| Processor ↓ | the Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | the C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| The Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (3DMark Score: 12,163) Par (GPU Score: 15,460) Par (CPU Score: 7,418) | 3DMark: -3.13% GPU: -0.70% CPU: -6.64% |
| The C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | 3DMark: +3.24% GPU: +0.70% CPU: +7.11% | Par (3DMark Score: 12,557) Par (GPU Score: 15,568) Par (CPU Score: 7,946) |
The CPU’s are very close to each except in the CPU test. Here, where the program tries to isolate the CPU from the GPU the Core 2 is +7% faster. Otherwise the processor’s performance is close to each other.
3DMark 11
3DMark 11 was released to take advantage of Direct X 11 first released with Windows 7 and backported to Windows Vista. The 3DMark 11 engine uses DX 11 features like tessellation, Compute, and multi-core CPU’s. AMD was the first to release Direct X 11 capable video cards with the 5000 series which included such cards as the Radeon 5870 and Radeon HD 5850. NVidia really their cards a few months later with the GTX 400 series.
| Processor | % of Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) | % of Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) | % of C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) | Par | 3DMark: -4.43% GPU: +0.06% Physics: -12.33% | 3DMark: -4.11% GPU: -2.06% Physics: -7.88% | 3DMark: -10.14% GPU: -2.27% Physics: -24.20% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) | 3DMark: +4.64% GPU: -0.06% Physics: +14.07% | Par | 3DMark: +0.33% GPU: -2.13% Physics: +5.07% | 3DMark: -5.97% GPU: -2.33% Physics: -13.53% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) | 3DMark: +4.30% GPU: +2.11% Physics: +8.55% | 3DMark: -0.33% GPU: +2.17% Physics: -4.83% | Par | 3DMark: -6.30% GPU: -0.21% Physics: -17.71% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) | 3DMark: +11.30% GPU: +2.32% Physics: +31.92% | 3DMark: +6.35% GPU: +2.40% Physics: +15.65% | 3DMark: +6.71% GPU: +0.21% Physics: +21.53% | Par |
The CPU’s stock for stock has the Q6600 ahead by a small amount until the Physics test with an +8.55% advantage over the 9550. The overclocked Ph9550 has a solid advantage of +14% over the stock 6600 in the Physics test. But again, the overclocked Q6600 has a commanding lead in the Total and Physics tests which is dependent on the processor.
| Processor ↓ | the Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | the C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| The Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (3DMark Score: 3,985) Par (GPU Score: 4,639) Par (CPU Score: 2,794) | 3DMark: -2.42% GPU: -2.09% CPU: -2.71% |
| The C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | 3DMark: +2.48% GPU: +2.13% CPU: +2.80% | Par (3DMark Score: 4,084) Par (GPU Score: 4,738) Par (CPU Score: 2,872) |
The Q6600 has a minor lead in each 3DMark 11 sub-test. The largest is in the CPU test @ 2.8%.