Xeon Gold 6326 vs Core 2 Quad Q8400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q8400
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.30
Xeon Gold 6326
2021
16 cores / 32 threads, 185 Watt
22.20
+1608%

Xeon Gold 6326 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8400 by a whopping 1608% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2266234
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.3011.36
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Ice Lake-SP (2021)
Release date19 April 2009 (15 years ago)6 April 2021 (3 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.9 GHz
Boost clock speed0.67 GHz3.5 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB24 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Die size2x 82 mm2no data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °C78 °C
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 Xeon Gold 6326 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 configuration12
SocketFCLGA775,LGA775FCLGA4189
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt185 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanesno data64

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 1.30
Xeon Gold 6326 22.20
+1608%

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 2067
Xeon Gold 6326 35270
+1606%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.30 22.20
Recency 19 April 2009 6 April 2021
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 185 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q8400 has 94.7% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6326, on the other hand, has a 1607.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon Gold 6326 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 Xeon Gold 6326 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8400 and Xeon Gold 6326, 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 Xeon Gold 6326
Xeon Gold 6326

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 1340 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 30 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6326 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 Xeon Gold 6326, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.