Core 2 Quad Q9400 vs A8-3820
Core 2 Quad Q9400
A8-3820
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Core 2 Quad Q9400 is positioned at rank 1003 and the A8-3820 is on rank 1032, so the Core 2 Quad Q9400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q9400
Performance Per Dollar A8-3820
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($25) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Yorkfield (2007−2009) / 45 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Llano (2011−2012) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+693%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($25) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($200) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core 2 Quad Q9400 and A8-3820
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.
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.
Processing Power
Both the Core 2 Quad Q9400 and A8-3820 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.67 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q9400 versus 2.8 GHz on the A8-3820 — a 4.8% clock advantage for the A8-3820 (base: 2.66 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses the Yorkfield (2007−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the A8-3820 uses Llano (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core 2 Quad Q9400 scores 2,160 against the A8-3820's 2,178 — a 0.8% lead for the A8-3820. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 4 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 2.67 GHz | 2.8 GHz+5% |
| Base Clock | 2.66 GHz+6% | 2.5 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB (total)+500% | 1 MB (per core) |
| Process | 45 nm | 32 nm-29% |
| Architecture | Yorkfield (2007−2009) | Llano (2011−2012) |
| PassMark | 2,160 | 2,178 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 354 |
Memory & Platform
The Core 2 Quad Q9400 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the A8-3820 uses FM1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1066 memory speed. The A8-3820 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Core 2 Quad Q9400) vs 20 (A8-3820) — the A8-3820 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA775 | FM1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 2.0+82% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1066 | DDR3-1866 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 32 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 20 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Core 2 Quad Q9400) vs AMD-V (A8-3820). The A8-3820 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6550D), while the Core 2 Quad Q9400 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core 2 Quad Q9400 targets Desktop, A8-3820 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-3820 rivals Core i3-2120.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Radeon HD 6550D |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | AMD-V |
| Target Use | Desktop | Budget Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Core 2 Quad Q9400 launched at $229 MSRP, while the A8-3820 debuted at $280. At current prices ($25 vs $200), the Core 2 Quad Q9400 is $175 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core 2 Quad Q9400 delivers 86.4 pts/$ vs 10.9 pts/$ for the A8-3820 — making the Core 2 Quad Q9400 the 155.2% better value option.
| Feature | Core 2 Quad Q9400 | A8-3820 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229-18% | $280 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-88% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 86.4+693% | 10.9 |
| Release Date | 2008 | 2011 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core 2 Quad Q9400 and A8-3820
