Core 2 Quad Q8400 vs Core 2 Quad Q8300

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q8300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.19
Core 2 Quad Q8400
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.30
+9.2%

Core 2 Quad Q8400 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23462268
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.191.30
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Yorkfield (2007−2009)
Release dateNovember 2008 (16 years ago)19 April 2009 (15 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz0.67 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHz1333 MHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size2x 81 mm22x 82 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °C71 °C
Number of transistors456 million456 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625V0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FCLGA775,LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switching--
FSB parity--

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 are enumerated here.

VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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 Quad Q8300 1.19
Core 2 Quad Q8400 1.30
+9.2%

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 Quad Q8300 1891
Core 2 Quad Q8400 2067
+9.3%

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 312
Core 2 Quad Q8400 328
+5.1%

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 882
Core 2 Quad Q8400 896
+1.6%

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

Core 2 Quad Q8300 4000
Core 2 Quad Q8400 4290
+7.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 1.30

Core 2 Quad Q8400 has a 9.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Core 2 Quad Q8400, 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 Quad Q8300
Core 2 Quad Q8300
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400
Core 2 Quad Q8400

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.


3.8 602 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1341 vote

Rate Core 2 Quad Q8400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q8300 or Core 2 Quad Q8400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.