Core 2 Quad Q8300 vs Ryzen 5 1600X
Aggregated performance score
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 593% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 823 | 2216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.20 | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (7 years ago) | November 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
| Current price | $125 (0.5x MSRP) | $16.63 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 1600X has 356% better value for money than Core 2 Quad Q8300.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 | 12 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus support | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 2x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 456 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | 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 | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 | 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.
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 593% 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%
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 593% 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%
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 261% 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%
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Core 2 Quad Q8300 by 445% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.45 | 1.22 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
The Ryzen 5 1600X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Quad Q8300 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600X and Core 2 Quad Q8300, 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.
