Core 2 Quad Q8400 vs A8-3820
Aggregated performance score
A8-3820 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8400 by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
Comparing A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2085 | 2123 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.06 | 2.73 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 20 December 2011 (12 years old) | April 2009 (15 years old) |
| Current price | $316 | $58 |
Value for money
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core 2 Quad Q8400 has 4450% better value for money than A8-3820.
Technical specs
A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.67 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 456 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM1 | FCLGA775,LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | no data |
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.
A8-3820 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8400 by 5% based on our aggregated 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%
A8-3820 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8400 by 5% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Quad Q8400 outperforms A8-3820 by 10% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core 2 Quad Q8400 outperforms A8-3820 by 2% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.42 | 1.35 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 95 Watt |
We couldn't decide between A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions on choice between A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q8400, 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.
