Core M-5Y10c vs Core 2 Quad Q8300
Core M-5Y10c
Core 2 Quad Q8300
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 M-5Y10c is positioned at rank 1166 and the Core 2 Quad Q8300 is on rank 985, so the Core 2 Quad Q8300 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Core M-5Y10c
Performance Per Dollar Core 2 Quad Q8300
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($281) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Broadwell-Y (2014) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Yorkfield (2007−2009) / 45 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+2726%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($281) | ✅ More affordable ($10) |
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 M-5Y10c and Core 2 Quad Q8300
Core M-5Y10c
The Core M-5Y10c is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 October 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 0.8 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1234. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,906 points. Launch price was $281.
Core 2 Quad Q8300
The Core 2 Quad Q8300 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 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 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: 1,917 points. Launch price was $249.
Processing Power
The Core M-5Y10c packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Core 2 Quad Q8300 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Core 2 Quad Q8300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Core M-5Y10c versus 2.5 GHz on the Core 2 Quad Q8300 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Core 2 Quad Q8300 (base: 0.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core M-5Y10c uses the Broadwell-Y (2014) architecture (14 nm), while the Core 2 Quad Q8300 uses Yorkfield (2007−2009) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core M-5Y10c scores 1,906 against the Core 2 Quad Q8300's 1,917 — a 0.6% lead for the Core 2 Quad Q8300. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core M-5Y10c vs 0 kB on the Core 2 Quad Q8300.
| Feature | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2 GHz | 2.5 GHz+25% |
| Base Clock | 0.8 GHz | 2.5 GHz+213% |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 4 MB (total)+1500% |
| Process | 14 nm-69% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Broadwell-Y (2014) | Yorkfield (2007−2009) |
| PassMark | 1,906 | 1,917 |
Memory & Platform
The Core M-5Y10c uses the FCBGA1234 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core 2 Quad Q8300 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1234 | LGA775 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+173% | PCIe 1.1 |
| Max RAM Speed | LPDDR3-1600 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | ❌ | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 12 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core M-5Y10c) / not specified (Core 2 Quad Q8300). The Core M-5Y10c includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 5300), while the Core 2 Quad Q8300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core M-5Y10c targets Mobile.
| Feature | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 5300 | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | — |
| Target Use | Mobile | — |
Value Analysis
The Core M-5Y10c launched at $281 MSRP, while the Core 2 Quad Q8300 debuted at $179. At current prices ($281 vs $10), the Core 2 Quad Q8300 is $271 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Core M-5Y10c delivers 6.8 pts/$ vs 191.7 pts/$ for the Core 2 Quad Q8300 — making the Core 2 Quad Q8300 the 186.3% better value option.
| Feature | Core M-5Y10c | Core 2 Quad Q8300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $281 | $179-36% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $281 | $10-96% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.8 | 191.7+2719% |
| Release Date | 2014 | 2008 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core M-5Y10c and Core 2 Quad Q8300
