A8-7200P vs Core 2 Quad Q9400

A8-7200P vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Performance Spectrum

A8-7200P

4 / 4

2,158

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Core 2 Quad Q9400

4 / 4

2,160

+0.1%

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.

A8-7200P 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.

A8-7200P 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.

A8-7200P

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 4W instead of 95W, a 91W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R5 Graphics, while Core 2 Quad Q9400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,158 vs 2,160).

Core 2 Quad Q9400

2008

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $229 MSRP, while A8-7200P mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2275% higher power demand at 95W vs 4W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A8-7200P can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A8-7200P better than Core 2 Quad Q9400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A8-7200P is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Quad Q9400 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core 2 Quad Q9400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A8-7200P is still the much better call for a fresh build. A8-7200P comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core 2 Quad Q9400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (9.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

A8-7200P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A8-7200P vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 Technical Specifications

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

A8-7200P

The A8-7200P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 MB. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,158 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 A8-7200P and Core 2 Quad Q9400 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the A8-7200P versus 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — a 21.1% clock advantage for the A8-7200P (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.66 GHz). The A8-7200P uses the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A8-7200P scores 2,158 against the Core 2 Quad Q9400's 2,160 — a 0.1% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q9400.

Feature	A8-7200P	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	3.3 GHz+24%	2.67 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.66 GHz+11%
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	4096 kB	6 MB (total)+50%
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	Yorkfield (2007−2009)
PassMark	2,158	2,160

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-7200P uses the FP3 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 1866 on the A8-7200P versus DDR3-1066 on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 — the A8-7200P supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The A8-7200P supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (A8-7200P) vs 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9400) — the A8-7200P offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A8-7200P	Core 2 Quad Q9400
Socket	FP3	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	1866+75%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB+100%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A8-7200P) vs VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9400). The A8-7200P includes integrated graphics (Radeon R5 Graphics), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q9400 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-7200P rivals Core i3-4100M.