Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 vs Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
Comparative analysis of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 and Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization. Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
- CPU is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
- 2 more cores, run more applications at once: 4 vs 2
- 2x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
- 2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
- Around 81% better performance in PassMark - CPU mark: 2186 vs 1206
- Around 79% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1322 vs 738
- Around 74% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 0.573 vs 0.33
- Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 31.997 vs 26.311
- Around 79% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.177 vs 0.099
- Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 1.154 vs 0.68
- Around 76% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 4.249 vs 2.408
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | March 2008 vs January 2008 |
Number of cores | 4 vs 2 |
L1 cache | 256 KB vs 128 KB |
L2 cache | 12288 KB vs 6144 KB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - CPU mark | 2186 vs 1206 |
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1322 vs 738 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.573 vs 0.33 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 31.997 vs 26.311 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.177 vs 0.099 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.154 vs 0.68 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.249 vs 2.408 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
- Around 12% higher clock speed: 3 GHz vs 2.67 GHz
- Around 1% higher maximum core temperature: 72.4°C vs 71.4°C
- Around 46% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 95 Watt
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1237 vs 1128
- Around 5% better performance in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 422 vs 403
Specifications (specs) | |
Maximum frequency | 3 GHz vs 2.67 GHz |
Maximum core temperature | 72.4°C vs 71.4°C |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 95 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - Single thread mark | 1237 vs 1128 |
Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 422 vs 403 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
CPU 2: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
PassMark - Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench 4 - Single Core |
|
|
||||
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
Name | Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - Single thread mark | 1128 | 1237 |
PassMark - CPU mark | 2186 | 1206 |
Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 403 | 422 |
Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1322 | 738 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.573 | 0.33 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 31.997 | 26.311 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.177 | 0.099 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.154 | 0.68 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.249 | 2.408 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Physics Score | 2400 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture codename | Yorkfield | Wolfdale |
Launch date | March 2008 | January 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 2970 | 2971 |
Price now | $335 | $129.95 |
Processor Number | Q9450 | E8400 |
Series | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors | Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors |
Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Value for money (0-100) | 3.31 | 4.87 |
Vertical segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Performance |
||
64 bit support | ||
Base frequency | 2.66 GHz | 3.00 GHz |
Bus Speed | 1333 MHz FSB | 1333 MHz FSB |
Die size | 214 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
L1 cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
L2 cache | 12288 KB | 6144 KB |
Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 45 nm |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | 72 °C |
Maximum core temperature | 71.4°C | 72.4°C |
Maximum frequency | 2.67 GHz | 3 GHz |
Number of cores | 4 | 2 |
Transistor count | 820 million | 410 million |
VID voltage range | 0.8500V-1.3625V | 0.8500V-1.3625V |
Memory |
||
Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Compatibility |
||
Low Halogen Options Available | ||
Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
Package Size | 37.5mm x 37.5mm | 37.5mm x 37.5mm |
Sockets supported | LGA775 | LGA775 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Security & Reliability |
||
Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
Advanced Technologies |
||
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
FSB parity | ||
Idle States | ||
Intel 64 | ||
Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
Intel® Demand Based Switching | ||
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
Thermal Monitoring | ||
Virtualization |
||
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) |