CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q8400 vs E8400

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

overclock popularity

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q8400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q8400

Report a correction
Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score 228 vs 194 Around 20% better SysMark 2007 video creation score
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 5,362 vs 3,114 More than 70% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better PassMark score 3,229 vs 2,170 Around 50% better PassMark score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 3,330 vs 2,310 Around 45% better 3DMark11 physics score
Marginally newer Apr, 2009 vs Jan, 2008 Release date over 1 years later
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 11,577 vs 7,187 More than 60% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 6 MB vs 4 MB 50% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 3x more l2 cache per core
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 135.98W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.66 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 19.73 pt/$ vs 5.4 pt/$ Around 3.8x better performance per dollar
Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score 191 vs 171 More than 10% better SysMark 2007 overall score
Much better SysMark 2007 productivity score 201 vs 151 Around 35% better SysMark 2007 productivity score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 51.39 $/year 3.3x lower annual home energy cost
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,257 vs 1,127 More than 10% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 130.79 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per watt 5.77 pt/W vs 3.07 pt/W Around 90% better performance per watt
Better SysMark 2007 3D score 176 vs 167 More than 5% better SysMark 2007 3D score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q8400 vs Duo E8400

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Quad Q8400 Core2 Duo E8400 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q8400  vs
Duo E8400 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz

details

Core2 Quad Q8400  vs
Duo E8400 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 4 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 45 nms
Transistor count 456,000,000 410,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 9
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 71.4°C Unknown - 72.4°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 29 125

power consumption

TDP 95W 65W
Annual home energy cost 51.39 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 130.79 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 3.07 pt/W 5.77 pt/W
Typical power consumption 135.98W 52.81W
Intel Core2 Quad Q8400
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus