A6-4400M vs Core 2 Quad Q8300

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Quad Q8300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.24
+87.9%

Core 2 Quad Q8300 outperforms A6-4400M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23402757
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency1.191.72
Architecture codenameYorkfield (2007−2009)Trinity (2012−2013)
Release dateNovember 2008 (16 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed2.5 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate1333 MHzno data
L1 cache64K (per core)96 KB
L2 cache4 MB (shared)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size2x 81 mm2246 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)71 °Cno data
Number of transistors456 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FS1r2
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno data86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M 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 Q8300 and A6-4400M are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3unknown

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon HD 7520G

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 1.24
+87.9%
A6-4400M 0.66

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 1892
+87.3%
A6-4400M 1010

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 312
A6-4400M 318
+1.9%

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.

Core 2 Quad Q8300 882
+119%
A6-4400M 403

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.24 0.66
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Core 2 Quad Q8300 has a 87.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

A6-4400M, on the other hand, has a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Core 2 Quad Q8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the A6-4400M in performance tests.

Note that Core 2 Quad Q8300 is a desktop processor while A6-4400M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and A6-4400M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300
Core 2 Quad Q8300
AMD A6-4400M
A6-4400M

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 591 vote

Rate Core 2 Quad Q8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 179 votes

Rate A6-4400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Quad Q8300 or A6-4400M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.