Core 2 Quad Q8300 vs Xeon X6550
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X6550 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2216 | 2240 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | no data | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) | November 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $77 | $16.63 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q8300 has 1981% better value for money than Xeon X6550.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 18 MB L3 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 456 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1567 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
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.
Xeon X6550 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon X6550 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 2% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.25 | 1.22 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300.
Be aware that Xeon X6550 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Quad Q8300 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X6550 and Core 2 Quad Q8300, 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.
