A10-9620P vs Core 2 Quad Q8200
Aggregate performance score
A10-9620P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2285 | 1986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.64 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | August 2008 (15 years ago) | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | $36 | $886 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P 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 | 2.33 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 250 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | 90 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 3100 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P 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 | no data |
| Socket | LGA775 | FP4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Dual-Channel DDR3/DDR4-1866 Memory Controller, PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P 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 Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) |
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.
A10-9620P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by 43% based on our aggregate 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%
A10-9620P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by 44% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by 70% 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%
A10-9620P outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by 31% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 1.65 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
The A10-9620P is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q8200 is a desktop processor while A10-9620P is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8200 and A10-9620P, 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.
