EPYC 7452 vs Core 2 Quad Q8400
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7452 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8400 by a whopping 2079% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2266 | 163 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.57 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.30 | 17.30 |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 19 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,025 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452 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 cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.67 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 23.5 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 2x 82 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452 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 configuration | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA775,LGA775 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452 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 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.30 | 28.33 |
| Recency | 19 April 2009 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 32 |
| Threads | 4 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 155 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q8400 has 63.2% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7452, on the other hand, has a 2079.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7452 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q8400 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q8400 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7452 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8400 and EPYC 7452, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
