AMD Phenom 9550 vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 – AquaMark 3, Crysis, Final Fantasy, Mafia II, Monster Hunter Results
AquaMark 3 is a benchmark based on the game. It uses Direct X 9.0 with a fallback path for video cards that only support DX 8 and DX 7. It uses Pixel Shader 2.0 in Direct X 9 mode. This is an old benchmark that should be fine for standard CPU testing.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Score: -14.80% Graphics: -15.97% CPU: -12.50% | Score: -13.28% Graphics: -9.99% CPU: -19.71% | Score: -30.67% Graphics: -28.10% CPU: -35.70% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Score: +17.36% Graphics: +19.01% CPU: +14.27% | Par | Score: +1.77% Graphics: +7.12% CPU: -8.25% | Score: -18.63% Graphics: -14.43% CPU: -26.51% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Score: +15.31% Graphics: +11.10% CPU: +24.55% | Score: -1.74% Graphics: -6.64% CPU: +8.99% | Par | Score: -20.05% Graphics: -14.42% CPU: -19.90% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Score: +44.23% Graphics: +39.07% CPU: +55.91% | Score: +22.90% Graphics: +16.85% CPU: +36.08% | Score: +25.07% Graphics: +25.17% CPU: +24.84% | Par |
Stock for stock the Q6600 is notably faster than the Ph9550 in all three metrics. In the CPU test it walks all over the Phenom at +24.5% faster. The overclocked Phenom wins two of the three tests over the stock Q6600 but the overclocked Q6600 is just so much faster than everything. The overclocked Q6600 is around +23%, +17%, and +36% faster than the overlocked Ph9550. The performance scaled very well with the CPU, FSB, and memory clockspeed increases.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (Score: 68,393) Par (Graphics: 10,350) Par (CPU: 10,074) | Score: -7.34% Graphics: -2.37% CPU: -17.07% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Score: +7.93% Graphics: +2.43% CPU: +20.58% | Par (Score: 73,816) Par (Graphics: 10,602) Par (CPU: 12,148) |
On a clock for clock basis the Phenom is competitive except in the CPU test which is -17% slower.
Can it run Crysis? Still a well known meme to this day. Crysis is a very well known game that would bring many computers to their knees back in the day. I used the single player demo and ran the CPU portion of the built-in benchmark time demo. I unfortunately couldn’t get the GPU time demo to report the results after it finished. I also ran the tests using both the 32-bit and 64-bit binaries. As you’ll see below, the CPU’s responded quite differently depending on the binaries used.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Min: -17.60% Max: -9.98% Ave: -11.50% | Min: -23.30% Max: -13.97% Ave: -12.96% | Min: -31.26% Max: -28.30% Ave: -29.57% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Min: +21.30% Max: +11.08% Ave: +13.03% | Par | Min: -6.96% Max: -4.43% Ave: -1.64% | Min: -16.61% Max: -20.34% Ave: -20.41% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Min: +30.38% Max: +16.24% Ave: +14.90% | Min: +7.48% Max: +4.64% Ave: +1.67% | Par | Min: -10.37% Max: -16.64% Ave: -19.07% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Min: +45.47% Max: +39.45% Ave: +41.98% | Min: +19.92% Max: +25.53% Ave: +25.64% | Min: +11.57% Max: +19.96% Ave: +23.57% | Par |
The 32-bit results has the Q6600 with a very healthy lead stock for stock and the minimum frame rate is a very large +30% faster. Even the overclocked Phenom ends up a few percent short of the stock Q6600.
I unfortunately couldn’t get the time demo to work right when I reinstalled everything for the Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz results. It would run and finish but wouldn’t output the FPS results. The Q6600 would still be around 6%-22% faster clock for clock.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Min: -18.18% Max: -8.38% Ave: -13.61% | Min: -1.83% Max: -3.30% Ave: -9.51% | Min: -23.12% Max: -19.24% Ave: -22.36% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Min: +22.22% Max: +9.15% Ave: +15.76% | Par | Min: +19.99% Max: +5.56% Ave: +4.75% | Min: -6.03% Max: -11.84% Ave: -10.12% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Min: +1.86% Max: +3.40% Ave: +10.51% | Min: -16.66% Max: -5.27% Ave: -4.53% | Par | Min: -21.70% Max: -16.50% Ave: -14.20% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Min: +30.08% Max: +23.82% Ave: +28.80% | Min: +6.42% Max: +13.44% Ave: +11.26% | Min: +27.70% Max: +19.75% Ave: +16.55% | Par |
The CPU’s responded very differently between the 32/64-bit binaries. Stock for stock in 32-bit the Q6600 was faster by +30% in minimum fps, +15% in maximum, and +25% average. But in 64-bit the Q6600 advantage drops drastically. The advantage is now only +1.8%, +3.4%, and +10.5% faster. Really not sure why this is. Maybe the way the 64-bit code path has been optimized favors the Phenom? Either way, the Ph9550 makes up a lot of ground with the 64-bit code path.
Similar to the 32-bit runs, I couldn’t get Crysis 64-bit to output the FPS numbers properly for the clock for clock testing after the re-install. The Phenom would be a bit faster in Minimum, a touch faster in Maximum but a bit slower in average frames per second. So much more competitive in 64-bit.
Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers is a much newer game compared to the age of the CPU’s. But I wanted to include some data on these CPU’s playing a newer title. “ShadowBringers” is a title released in the 2019 timeframe. I used the Desktop “Standard” preset with a resolution of 1280×720 and everything else at default.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Min: -15.38% Ave: -10.58% | Min: +10.00% Ave: +1.33% | Min: -26.66% Ave: -20.83% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Min: +18.18% Ave: +11.83% | Par | Min: +30.00% Ave: +13.32% | Min: -13.33% Ave: -11.47% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Min: -9.09% Ave: -1.31% | Min: -23.07% Ave: -11.75% | Par | Min: -33.33% Ave: -21.88% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Min: +36.36% Ave: +26.31% | Min: +15.38% Ave: +12.95% | Min: +50.00% Ave: +28.00% | Par |
The Ph9550 does well in this test. Stock for stock it is faster than the Q6600. The main advantages the Phenom has is low latency memory bandwidth and a native quad-core design that helps keep the cores from stalling waiting on another core to communicate data. Maybe the 3D engine in general favors the Phenom architecture. Once you overclock both CPUs, the Q6600 has no problem gaining the lead. The overclocked Q6600 is around +13% average fps faster than the overclocked Ph9550. The minimum frame results doesn’t include fractional data so it could be rounded up or down and make the results look better/worse than they really are.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (Min:11 fps) Par (Ave: 52.32 fps) | Min: +0.00% Ave: +5.78% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Min: +0.00% Ave: -5.46% | Par (Min: 11 fps) Par (Ave: 49.46 fps) |
On a clock for clock basis the Phenom is very competitive being about +6% faster in average frame per second. Minimum fps is about the same between the two. As mentioned above the game doesn’t give fractional numbers for minimum fps.
Mafia II is a game released in 2010. So it is a title near these CPU’s heyday. The game recommended a quad-core around 2.4 GHz so it may take advantage of up to four threads. I believe the game makes use of Direct X 10. I ran everything at their default settings.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Ave: -8.60% | Ave: -4.06% | Ave: -11.90% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Ave: +9.42% | Par | Ave: +4.97% | Ave: -3.60% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Ave: +4.23% | Ave: -4.73% | Par | Ave: -8.16% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Ave: +13.50% | Ave: +3.73% | Ave: +8.88% | Par |
Stock for stock the Q6600 is a touch faster than the Ph9550. The Ph9550 puts up a pretty good showing despite an 8.4% clockspeed disadvantage. Even the overclocked Phenom gives the overclocked Q6600 a run for its money only losing by -3.6% despite a 12% clockspeed disadvantage.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (Ave. FPS: 63.70) | Score: +4.25% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Ave: -4.08% | Par (Ave. Fps: 61.10) |
The Phenom does well clock for clock. The Ph9550 has a +4% lead over the Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz.
Munster Hunter Online was an MMO game released around August 2013. The minimum recommended CPU was a Core 2 Duo @ 2.4 GHz. A Core i3/Phenom II 970 were the recommended CPUs. It uses the Crytek CryEngine3 3D engine with DX 11 support. It is another game that is a few years newer than these CPUs.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 Stock (2.20 GHz) is: | Phenom 9550 OC (2.64 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 Stock (2.40 GHz) is: | C2Q Q6600 OC (3.00 GHz) is: |
| Phenom 9550 (Stock 2.20 GHz) compared to: | Par | Res 768: -5.26% Res 900: -3.10% | Res 768: -1.07% Res 900: +0.52% | Res 768: -4.40% Res 900: -1.80% |
| Phenom 9550 (OC 2.64 GHz) compared to: | Res 768: +5.55% Res 900: +3.20% | Par | Res 768: +4.42% Res 900: +3.73% | Res 768: +0.90% Res 900: +1.33% |
| C2Q Q6600 (Stock 2.40 GHz) compared to: | Res 768: +1.08% Res 900: -0.51% | Res 768: -4.23% Res 900: -3.60% | Par | Res 768: -3.36% Res 900: -2.31% |
| C2Q Q6600 (OC 3.00 GHz) compared to: | Res 768: +4.61% Res 900: +1.84% | Res 768: -0.90% Res 900: +1.31% | Res 768: +3.48% Res 900: +2.37% | Par |
The CPUs stock for stock are very similar in performance. At both the 1280 and 1440 resolution only 0.5% and 1% separate the two processors. I would say they are pretty much GPU bottlenecked, but the overclocked CPUs do get 3%-5% more performance.
| Processor↓ | Phenom 9550 @ 2.2 GHz is: | C2Q Q6600 @ 2.2 GHz is: |
| Phenom 9550 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Par (Res 768: 7072) Par (Res 900: 5979) | Res768: +0.82% Res900: +1.25% |
| C2Q Q6600 @ 2.20 GHz compared to: | Res768: -0.82% Res900: -1.23% | Par (Res 768: 7014) Par (Res 900: 5905) |
It may not be absolute but the Phenom architecture seems to do well in newer titles than the old ones compared to the Q6600. As mentioned multiple times, it could be the low latency bandwidth and native quad core architecture that has an impact.