Core 2 Quad Q8200 vs Phenom II X6 1075T
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X6 1075T outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8200 by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1842 | 2384 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.18 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.63 | 1.12 |
| Architecture codename | Thuban (2010) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 21 September 2010 (14 years ago) | August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $260 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.33 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.33 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 346 mm2 | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 904 million | 456 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200 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 | AM3 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200. 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
Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200 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 Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.24 | 1.17 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 95 Watt |
Phenom II X6 1075T has a 91.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Core 2 Quad Q8200, on the other hand, has 31.6% lower power consumption.
The Phenom II X6 1075T is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X6 1075T and Core 2 Quad Q8200, 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.
