CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q8400 vs E8400


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)


How much speed can you get out of the processor?

overclock popularity


Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Intel Core2 Duo E8400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400  based on its single-core performance and value.

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!

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 3DMark11 physics score 3,330 vs 2,310 Around 45% better 3DMark11 physics 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 PassMark score 3,234 vs 2,172 Around 50% better PassMark score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 5,191 vs 3,092 Around 70% better geekbench (64-bit) score
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
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 better performance per dollar 22.14 pt/$ vs 7.44 pt/$ Around 3x better performance per dollar
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 135.98W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 3x more l2 cache per core
Higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.66 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
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
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 130.79 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,257 vs 1,127 More than 10% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better performance per watt 5.62 pt/W vs 2.99 pt/W Around 90% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q8400 vs Duo E8400

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

sysmark 2007 (overall)

PassMark Data courtesy PassMark

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core2 Quad Q8400  vs
Duo E8400 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 2.99 pt/W 5.62 pt/W
Typical power consumption 135.98W 52.81W


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 nm 45 nm
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


Overclock popularity 29 125

integrated graphics

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


Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz
Intel Core2 Quad Q8400
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction

Read more


comments powered by Disqus