A8-3820 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

CPU

GPU

A8-3820

4 Cores4 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.8 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Core 2 Quad Q9400

4 Cores4 Thrd95 WWMax: 2.67 GHz2008

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A8-3820 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Performance Spectrum

A8-3820

4 / 4

2,178

+0.8%

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.

A8-3820 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.

A8-3820 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.

A8-3820

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 95W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6550D, while Core 2 Quad Q9400 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core 2 Quad Q9400.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.8 vs 9.4 PassMark/$ ($280 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).

Core 2 Quad Q9400

2008

Why buy it

✅Costs $51 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $280 MSRP).
✅Delivers 21.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.4 vs 7.8 PassMark/$ ($229 MSRP vs $280 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,160 vs 2,178).
❌46.2% higher power demand at 95W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A8-3820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A8-3820.

Quick Answers

So, is A8-3820 better than Core 2 Quad Q9400?

Yes. A8-3820 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.8% 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, A8-3820 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% 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, A8-3820 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A8-3820 is still the much better call for a fresh build. A8-3820 comes in 22.3% more expensive on MSRP at $280 MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Quad Q9400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 21.3% better value on paper (9.4 vs 7.8 PassMark/$), 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?

A8-3820 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 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.

A8-3820 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Technical Specifications

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

A8-3820

The A8-3820 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,178 points. Launch price was $90.

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 A8-3820 and Core 2 Quad Q9400 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the A8-3820 versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the A8-3820 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.66 GHz). The A8-3820 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A8-3820 scores 2,178 against the Core 2 Quad Q9400's 2,160 — a 0.8% lead for the A8-3820. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A8-3820	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+5%	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	Llano (2011−2012)	Yorkfield (2007−2009)
PassMark	2,178	2,160
Geekbench 6 Single	354	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-3820 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), 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 A8-3820 versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — the A8-3820 supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A8-3820 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: 20 (A8-3820) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9400) — the A8-3820 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A8-3820	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Socket	FM1	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0+82%	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	20	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A8-3820) vs VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9400). The A8-3820 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6550D), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A8-3820 targets Budget Desktop, Core 2 Quad Q9400 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-3820 rivals Core i3-2120.

Feature	A8-3820	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6550D	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x
Target Use	Budget Desktop	Desktop

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A8-3820 was priced at $280, while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 came in at $229. On launch pricing ($280 vs $229), Core 2 Quad Q9400 was $51 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A8-3820 delivers 7.8 pts/$ vs 9.4 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9400 the 19.2% better value option.

Feature	A8-3820	Core 2 Quad Q9400
MSRP	$280	$229-18%
Performance per Dollar	7.8	9.4+21%
Release Date	2011	2008

Search A8-3820 on Amazon

Search Core 2 Quad Q9400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.