CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9400 vs 6700T among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Quad Q9400  based on its overclocking.

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 Q9400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400

Report a correction
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.54 GHz vs 2.5 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 2.5 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.15 GHz vs 2.5 GHz More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD A10 6700T

Reasons to consider the
AMD A10 6700T

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 77.19W 2.1x lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 2.1x lower annual home energy cost
Newer Sep, 2013 vs Jul, 2008 Release date over 5 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9400 vs A10 6700T

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q9400  vs
A10 6700T 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.5 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775
FM2

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
BMI1
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
ABM
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 45W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 1.51 pt/W 4.98 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 36.56W

details

Core2 Quad Q9400  vs
A10 6700T 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 6 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 71.4°C Unknown - 71.3°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.54 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.15 GHz 2.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.54 GHz 2.5 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon HD 8650D
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 720 MHz
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
Report a correction
AMD A10 6700T
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus