Atom x5-E3940 vs Core 2 Quad Q8200

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.

Atom x5-E3940 vs Core 2 Quad Q8200 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.

Atom x5-E3940 vs Core 2 Quad Q8200: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x5-E3940

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 10W instead of 95W, a 85W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 500, while Core 2 Quad Q8200 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Core 2 Quad Q8200

2008

Why buy it

✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 6) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,807 vs 1,816).
❌Launch MSRP is still $224 MSRP, while Atom x5-E3940 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌850% higher power demand at 95W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom x5-E3940 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-E3940 better than Core 2 Quad Q8200?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core 2 Quad Q8200 is ahead with a 0.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-E3940 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-E3940 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom x5-E3940 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom x5-E3940 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $224 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark. Core 2 Quad Q8200 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (8.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Atom x5-E3940 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 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.

Atom x5-E3940 vs Core 2 Quad Q8200 Technical Specifications

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

Atom x5-E3940

The Atom x5-E3940 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,816 points. Launch price was $69.

Core 2 Quad Q8200

The Core 2 Quad Q8200 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 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,807 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom x5-E3940 and Core 2 Quad Q8200 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3940 versus 2.33 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q8200 — a 25.7% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.33 GHz). The Atom x5-E3940 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q8200 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x5-E3940 scores 1,816 against the Core 2 Quad Q8200's 1,807 — a 0.5% lead for the Atom x5-E3940. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom x5-E3940	Core 2 Quad Q8200
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.33 GHz+29%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.33 GHz+46%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+100%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Yorkfield (2007−2009)
PassMark	1,816	1,807

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x5-E3940 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q8200 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3940 versus DDR3-1333 on the Core 2 Quad Q8200 — the Atom x5-E3940 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 6 (Atom x5-E3940) vs 16 (Core 2 Quad Q8200) — the Core 2 Quad Q8200 offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Atom x5-E3940	Core 2 Quad Q8200
Socket	FCBGA1296	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1866+40%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	6	16+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-E3940) / VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q8200). The Atom x5-E3940 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 500), while the Core 2 Quad Q8200 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q8200 targets Desktop.