Xeon W3505 vs Core 2 Quad Q8300
Aggregate performance score
Core 2 Quad Q8300 outperforms Xeon W3505 by an impressive 63% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2230 | 2558 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | 5.10 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Bloomfield (2008−2010) |
| Release date | November 2008 (15 years ago) | March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $16.63 | $73 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W3505 has 53% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q8300.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 2x 81 mm2 | 263 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 71 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 456 million | 731 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | 0.8V-1.225V |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505 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 | 1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 24 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | 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.
Core 2 Quad Q8300 outperforms Xeon W3505 by 63% 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%
Core 2 Quad Q8300 outperforms Xeon W3505 by 63% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.22 | 0.75 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 130 Watt |
The Core 2 Quad Q8300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3505 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Quad Q8300 is a desktop processor while Xeon W3505 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Xeon W3505, 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.
