A8-3800 vs Core 2 Quad Q9000

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9000
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
0.99
A8-3800
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.29
+30.3%

A8-3800 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9000 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24772286
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core 2 Quadno data
Power efficiency2.081.88
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date1 January 2009 (15 years ago)30 June 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$348no data

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800 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 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz2.7 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data128 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size107 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800 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 configurationno data1
SocketPGA478FM1
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800 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 Q9000 and A8-3800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 6550D

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 Q9000 0.99
A8-3800 1.29
+30.3%

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 Q9000 1575
A8-3800 2049
+30.1%

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 Q9000 274
A8-3800 291
+6.2%

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 Q9000 677
A8-3800 889
+31.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.99 1.29
Recency 1 January 2009 30 June 2011
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 65 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9000 has 44.4% lower power consumption.

A8-3800, on the other hand, has a 30.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The A8-3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q9000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Quad Q9000 is a notebook processor while A8-3800 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9000 and A8-3800, 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 Q9000
Core 2 Quad Q9000
AMD A8-3800
A8-3800

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.


4.9 533 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 71 vote

Rate A8-3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9000 or A8-3800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.