Athlon 64 3000+ vs Core 2 Quad Q8300
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2340 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.19 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Clawhammer (2001−2005) |
| Release date | November 2008 (16 years ago) | January 2001 (23 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $65 |
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512K |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 193 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 154 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+ 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 | LGA775 | 754 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 89 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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 Athlon 64 3000+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 89 Watt |
Core 2 Quad Q8300 has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 188.9% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon 64 3000+, on the other hand, has 6.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Athlon 64 3000+, 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.
