Athlon Neo MV-40 vs Core 2 Duo T8300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Duo T8300
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.93
+447%
Athlon Neo MV-40
2009
1 core / 1 thread, 15 Watt
0.17

Core 2 Duo T8300 outperforms Athlon Neo MV-40 by a whopping 447% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25123260
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Core 2 DuoAMD Athlon Neo
Power efficiency2.511.07
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Huron (2009)
Release date10 January 2008 (16 years ago)6 January 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$241no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz1600 MHz
L1 cacheno data128 KB
L2 cache3 MB512 KB
L3 cache3 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C95 °C
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1V-1.25Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40 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.

SocketBGA479,PGA478ASB1
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40 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 Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+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.

Core 2 Duo T8300 0.93
+447%
Athlon Neo MV-40 0.17

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.

Core 2 Duo T8300 1472
+435%
Athlon Neo MV-40 275

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.

Core 2 Duo T8300 2626
+106%
Athlon Neo MV-40 1274

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.

Core 2 Duo T8300 4837
+321%
Athlon Neo MV-40 1149

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.

Core 2 Duo T8300 2143
+249%
Athlon Neo MV-40 614

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 0.17
Recency 10 January 2008 6 January 2009
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

Core 2 Duo T8300 has a 447.1% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Athlon Neo MV-40, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Duo T8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon Neo MV-40 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo T8300 and Athlon Neo MV-40, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Core 2 Duo T8300
AMD Athlon Neo MV-40
Athlon Neo MV-40

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.

Community ratings

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


4.4 265 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 11 votes

Rate Athlon Neo MV-40 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Duo T8300 or Athlon Neo MV-40, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.