Core 2 Duo T5450 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q9400
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.34
+262%
Core 2 Duo T5450
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.37

Core 2 Quad Q9400 outperforms Core 2 Duo T5450 by a whopping 262% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22433031
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataCore 2 Duo
Power efficiency1.331.03
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Merom-2048 (2006−2008)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.66 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.67 GHz1.66 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHz667 MHz
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache6 MB (shared)no data
L3 cache0 KB2 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm65 nm
Die size2x 81 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors456 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625V1.075V-1.25V

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450 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 configuration1no data
SocketLGA775PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450 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 Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3no 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 Q9400 1.34
+262%
Core 2 Duo T5450 0.37

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 Q9400 2134
+266%
Core 2 Duo T5450 583

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 Q9400 334
+74.9%
Core 2 Duo T5450 191

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 Q9400 924
+183%
Core 2 Duo T5450 327

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 0.37
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q9400 has a 262.2% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Core 2 Duo T5450, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo T5450 in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q9400 is a desktop processor while Core 2 Duo T5450 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Core 2 Duo T5450, 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 Q9400
Core 2 Quad Q9400
Intel Core 2 Duo T5450
Core 2 Duo T5450

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.


4.3 1559 votes

Rate Core 2 Quad Q9400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 48 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T5450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q9400 or Core 2 Duo T5450, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.