Celeron N3160 vs Core 2 Quad Q8400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q8400
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.35
+73.1%

Core 2 Quad Q8400 outperforms Celeron N3160 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22622647
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.3017.78
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Braswell (2015−2016)
Release date19 April 2009 (15 years ago)15 January 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 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 speed2.66 GHz1.6 GHz
Boost clock speed0.67 GHz2.24 GHz
Bus typeno dataIDI
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache4 MB (shared)2 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Die size2x 82 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors456 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA775,LGA775FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt6 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
FSB parity-no data
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)Intel HD Graphics (Braswell)
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data640 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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 Quad Q8400 1.35
+73.1%
Celeron N3160 0.78

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 Q8400 2064
+73.9%
Celeron N3160 1187

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 Q8400 328
+94.1%
Celeron N3160 169

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 Q8400 893
+73.1%
Celeron N3160 516

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 0.78
Recency 19 April 2009 15 January 2016
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 6 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q8400 has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N3160, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1483.3% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q8400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3160 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q8400 is a desktop processor while Celeron N3160 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Celeron N3160, 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 Q8400
Core 2 Quad Q8400
Intel Celeron N3160
Celeron N3160

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 1336 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 195 votes

Rate Celeron N3160 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q8400 or Celeron N3160, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.