A10-5750M vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

A10-5750M vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Performance Spectrum

A10-5750M

4 / 4

2,174

+0.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Quad Q9400

4 / 4

2,160

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A10-5750M vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A10-5750M vs Core 2 Quad Q9400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A10-5750M

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8650G, while Core 2 Quad Q9400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Core 2 Quad Q9400

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,160 vs 2,174).
❌Launch MSRP is still $229 MSRP, while A10-5750M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10-5750M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A10-5750M better than Core 2 Quad Q9400?

Yes. A10-5750M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A10-5750M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A10-5750M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A10-5750M is still the much better call for a fresh build. A10-5750M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Quad Q9400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (9.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A10-5750M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A10-5750M vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-5750M

The A10-5750M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,174 points. Launch price was $130.

Core 2 Quad Q9400

The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 2.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,160 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A10-5750M and Core 2 Quad Q9400 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the A10-5750M versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — a 26.9% clock advantage for the A10-5750M (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.66 GHz). The A10-5750M uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A10-5750M scores 2,174 against the Core 2 Quad Q9400's 2,160 — a 0.6% lead for the A10-5750M. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A10-5750M	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+31%	2.67 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.66 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	6 MB (total)+500%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Yorkfield (2007−2009)
PassMark	2,174	2,160
Geekbench 6 Single	320	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	707	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-5750M uses the FS1r2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1866 on the A10-5750M versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — the A10-5750M supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A10-5750M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A10-5750M) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9400) — the A10-5750M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A10-5750M	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Socket	FS1r2	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866+75%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A10-5750M) vs VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9400). The A10-5750M includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8650G), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-5750M targets Legacy Laptop, Core 2 Quad Q9400 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: A10-5750M rivals Core i3-3110M.