Four cores: Intel Core 2 Quad

There is something mesmerizing about the combination of several cores from Intel, namely, a high-speed architecture that can provide high performance. The new Core 2 Quad processors should beat everything and everyone in the x86 world and solidify Intel's lead. At least until the quad-core comes out. AMD Deerhound. Our testing today will compare the performance of the upcoming Core 2 Quad processors with Core 2 Duo/Extreme, Pentium Extreme Edition and AMD Athlon 64 FX.

Will the performance race ever end? Here opinions differ even among experts. Some believe that multiple cores are absolutely necessary today. And others believe that a five-year-old computer is enough for their tasks. And although the quad-core Core 2 Quad processors will not be released until October, Tom's Hardware Guide laboratory got the opportunity to test their performance today. By the way, we emphasize that we did not receive processor samples from Intel.

Intel has taken the beaten path by embedding two Core 2 Duo dies in a single package. As a result, several questions arise. How much faster are four cores and so not a slow dual-core system? How will the heat dissipation and power consumption of a PC with four cores change? What applications benefit from the increase in the number of cores? Does the existing platform create "bottlenecks"? And finally, what is the maximum clock speed we can get?

And eight processors in one package?

What are the characteristics of modern processors? It is clear that for a long time not only in terms of performance. Dual core Pentium D 805 today it is enough for many applications, especially since after overclocking it can operate at a frequency of up to 4.1 GHz. In today's environment, power consumption and heat dissipation are becoming increasingly important, and Intel with the Core 2 Quad processor does not intend to go beyond the 130W TDP. By the way, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 has almost reached this value, and the Core 2 Quad processor has every chance to do the same. But then we get four cores in one package.

Four cores are not on the same die, but on two: two dual-core Core 2 dies are located side by side in a single package. And the number of transistors doubles to an impressive 582 million.

You can also calculate the area. The LGA 775 package will not be able to accommodate more than two Core 2 Duo (Conroe) cores, since there is simply not enough space. Each dual-core Core 2 die occupies an area of ​​143mm², so four dies will require at least 572mm2 of area (maximum 625mm2 available). But the elongated shape of the crystal (10.48 x 13.63 mm) does not allow placing four in one package. Therefore, it can be clearly stated that for the 65-nm process technology, Intel has reached the limit in terms of the number of dual crystals and cores. Of course, you can cut the cache to 2 MB and fit four chips in one package, but in this case, the heat dissipation will exceed 200 W, which does not justify itself. Therefore, we are confident that the next step will be four processors on a single chip with a common L2 cache.

But this is only the beginning. A move to 45nm is planned for mid-2007, and in 2009, thanks to submicron ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, Intel plans to move to 32nm. And by then, if nothing changes, the company will have a two-year technological lead over most other chip manufacturers.

Quad-core processor in detail

Intel Core 2 Quad at 2.66 GHz with a total L2 cache of 8 MB. Inside a single package are four cores.

Rumor has it that Intel plans to release the fastest quad-core Core processor in the form of the Core 2 Extreme.

Platforms: Intel 965 and 975X

Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad processors require a modern motherboard. It must use the 965 or 975X chipset, or a chipset from the nVidia nForce 500 line for Intel processors. Today, motherboard manufacturers are hastily making changes to the BIOS that would allow support for four cores. Updated BIOS versions for some models can already be downloaded from manufacturers' websites. In our testing, we used a Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 motherboard using the 965 chipset, which can be purchased for around $250. The board supports FSB frequency up to 333 MHz (FSB1333), which gives hope for its long life. Compared to Asus P5B Deluxe, this model turned out to be slightly faster in terms of memory bandwidth, which, however, does not greatly affect performance in real conditions. Intel is offering the P965LTCK board, but it hasn't hit stores yet.

Power consumption: Core 2 Quad vs. Duo and Pentium EE

If you look at core 2 duo benchmarks, then we can assume a twofold increase in the power consumption of the Core 2 Quad. Indeed, if for a Core 2 Duo the thermal package is 65 W at a supply voltage of 1.3 V, then two such crystals will consume up to 130 W of energy. The benchmark results show that the test platform consumes 167 watts at idle (with an ATi Radeon X300 accelerator and a 7200 rpm hard drive). At full load, power consumption rises to 260 watts. An increase of 100 watts! In comparison, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 consumes 142W idle and 165W at full load.

As you can see, a Core 2 Quad system consumes as much power when idle as a Core 2 Extreme system at full load. And if we load the Core 2 Quad, we get almost the same level as the old Pentium EE 965. However, the system still consumes 15 W less than the dual-core Pentium EE 840, and this is with increased performance due to four cores! In any case, the actual heat dissipation turns out to be significantly lower than the thermal package (TDP, Thermal Design Power) of 130 W.

System power consumption without load: 167 watts.

Power consumption at full load: 260 W.

However, the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 still remains the most power hungry processor - 275 W for the system at full load.

System bus: FSB1066 vs. FSB1333

Intel decided to increase the FSB clock speed of the Core 2 Quad processor to 333 MHz versus 266 MHz for the Core 2 Duo. As our tests have shown, FSB1333 (physical 333 MHz) does not provide advantages. At least not with a 2.66 GHz processor. But with an increase in the processor frequency to 3.0 GHz and higher, as well as with an increase in the memory frequency above the DDR2-1000 mark (physical 500 MHz), the FSB1333 shows what it is capable of.

Increasing the FSB frequency to 333 MHz is a completely logical step, since the Core 2 Conroe crystals use the FSB to communicate with each other and write / read to L2 caches. This is especially important when running multiple applications at the same time (multitasking). Such FSB speeds are no problem for modern 90nm chipsets.

It should not be forgotten, especially from the perspective of the Pentium 4, that the Core 2 micro-architecture uses a number of features that reduce the load on the memory bus, so higher FSB or memory frequencies do not lead to performance scaling.

Temperatures: Perceptibly hotter than Core 2 Duo/Extreme

The maximum temperature of the Core 2 Quad at full load was 66°C.

During the tests, the peak core temperature was 66°C using the stock Intel cooler. The maximum temperature for the Core 2 Extreme was 43°C.

The maximum temperature of the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 at full load is 79°C.

Important note: SpeedStep technology did not work properly on our test sample. The core voltage dropped to 1.050V after turning on SpeedStep, but after a few seconds the computer crashed.

Application issues

During testing, two problems arose. The first one concerned the game Call of Duty 2 (version 1.03), which simply did not start, crashing with an error.

Call of Duty II did not work on the Core 2 Quad system.

The second problem concerns the Microsoft WMA Encoder: encoding was very slow. Both problems can be solved by tying cores to threads. The situation is not unique to the Intel system, it will certainly occur on AMD systems with more than two processors.

The heterogeneity of the distribution of threads across processors is to blame here.

The problems are not new. We have encountered them before, when we enabled Hyper-Threading technology on the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965, which made it possible to get four virtual processors.

Core 2 Quad: record-breaking performance!

Intel plans to release the Core 2 Quad with a maximum clock speed of 2.66 GHz in mid-October. According to rumors, Intel will call the new model based on Kentsfield cores as Core 2 Extreme.

Core 2 Duo today comes with a minimum clock speed of 2.13 GHz. As previous experience shows, when doubling the number of crystals, Intel reduces the clock speed of the CPU. Our sample processor can be overclocked to 3.33 GHz without raising the voltage. The factory frequency was 2.66 GHz and the bus frequency was 333 MHz.

Our Core 2 Quad test sample ran smoothly at 3.33 GHz without raising the voltage!

Maximum frequency on the verge of stability: 3.4 GHz.

5016 points for the CPU test in 3DMark05: a new record!

And another record: 10,841 points in PCMark 2005.

And Sandra just "blew the roof off".

Core 2 Quad: Like Core 2 Duo/Extreme, all features are supported.

Test configuration

We took two hard drives Western Digital WD1500 Raptor-X at 10,000 rpm. One drive was used for reading and the other for large write operations.

The test systems used a pair of WD1500ADFD (WD Raptor, 10,000 rpm) hard drives.

All systems were equipped with 2 GB of memory.

DDR2 memory CM2X-1024-6400C3 from Corsair (CL4-4-4-8).

Because some tests require a sound card, we used Terratec Aureon Space 7.1.

All processors were tested in tandem with the GV-RX19X512VB-HRH (ATi X1900XTX) card from Gigabyte. We only inserted the ATi Radeon X300 card in power consumption tests.

Conclusion: Core 2 Quad further improves performance

The performance of the Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme processors was already not bad, but the Core 2 Quad processors increase it even more. Although not in all applications. At best, you can expect almost a doubling of performance. But again, it all depends on the application. Some software vendors have yet to make optimizations for multi-core processors.

The future is without a doubt HD video. And if you look at the results of tests of a quad-core processor, then it is impossible to resist the Core 2 Quad. The results of the Main Concept software packages with H.264 and WMV-HD encoding speak for themselves, with up to an 80 percent improvement over a Core 2 Duo processor at the same clock speed (2.66 GHz). Core 2 Quad at 2.66 GHz and above is great for HD video (editing and rendering) at full HD resolution (1920x1080). So demanding users are definitely advised to upgrade to four cores and even more of them. But up to eight cores is still far away, although developers at AMD and Intel are working tirelessly.

For gamers, on the other hand, the Core 2 Duo/Extreme or the legendary Pentium D 805 will suffice for now. The reason lies in the lack of optimization for four processors. In practice, games use a maximum of two cores, alas.

Overclocking fans will be satisfied. Our test specimen was overclocked to 3.33 GHz without raising the voltage and with a standard cooler.

The maximum system power consumption was 260 W, which means that the Core 2 Quad system consumes the same level as the Pentium EE 965. In idle mode, the power consumption of the Core 2 Quad system reached 167 W - about the same as that of the Core 2 Extreme at full load. The reason, most likely, lies in the still "raw" implementation of Intel SpeedStep technology. In terms of performance, the Core 2 Quad "tears" the classic Pentium 4/D processors just like Tuzik a heating pad: we get more than a twofold increase in performance compared to the Pentium EE 965 and, at the same time, lower power consumption. But keep in mind that the Core 2 Quad gets hotter than the Core 2 Duo/Extreme.

Intel plans to release a top-of-the-line Core 2 Quad for about $1,000. The buyer will receive a 2.66 GHz quad-core processor with 8 MB of L2 cache in total.

Editor's opinion

Working with one of the first examples of a quad-core processor is simply amazing! And no matter how many programs you run in parallel, the system does not lose its responsiveness. And some apps get the job done twice as fast. Personally, I was sort of transported to the era of future computing. It's a completely different feeling from the massive clock speed increase of recent years, where performance has been dropping by the quarter. With the release of the Core 2 Duo, Intel was able to deliver 30 percent more performance. And taking into account the Core 2 Quad, the increase becomes even higher.

Despite the fact that Intel Quad Core processors were released more than 10 years ago, they are still very relevant and are at the head of many computer ...

By Masterweb

Despite the fact that Intel Quad Core processors were released more than 10 years ago, they are still very relevant and are at the head of many computer assemblies. Of course, in 2018, building a PC on such a CPU from scratch would be stupid, but using it as an upgrade to an old system in order to extend its life and give it power is quite realistic and reasonable. But which processor is better to give preference to from the entire line, especially since the difference in price between the models is not so great? Well, let's look into this issue.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600

So, the first processor in today's rating is Q6600. This CPU is perhaps one of the most popular among the entire line. Its cost is very low, and the characteristics make it possible not only to use the "stone" to create a multimedia or work PC, but also as a gaming, though entry-level, but still.

Description and characteristics

Intel Quad Core 6600 first appeared on sale in 2007 and almost immediately received the status of "people's favorite". Why practically? Because initially sales were not the best way. At the start, the processor cost an astonishing $500, and only people for whom money was not a problem bought it. After a couple of months, the price was significantly reduced, and that's when the Q6600 became a truly popular processor.

It is intended for motherboards with a socket 775. By the type of structure, it uses not only a new core at the time of release, but also a new 65 nm production technology.

The processor has all proprietary technologies, and also supports most of the necessary instructions, for example, SSE, MMX, etc. Of course, compared to today's CPUs, the list of technologies and instructions is not too large, but for that time it was almost the maximum.

The "pebble" works at a frequency of 2400 MHz, but this is not the limit. The processor supports overclocking functions, so that the operating frequency can be raised up to 3.4 GHz without any problems, however, there are cases when some overclockers were given a bar of 3.6 GHz and even higher.

Actually, the biggest disadvantage of the 6600 is its heat pack, which causes the processor to get very hot. And if we also take into account the possibility of overclocking, then there is a risk of completely burning the “stone”. To prevent this, you need to take care of a good and spacious case, as well as a high-quality cooling system in the form of, for example, a tower cooler.

Specifications of Intel Core Quad Q6600 CPU:

• Socket - LGA775.
• The number of cores is 4.
• Frequency - 2.4 GHz.
• The core name is Kentsfield.
• The manufacturing process is 65 nm.
• L1 cache - 4x64 kb.
• L2 cache - 8 MB.
• L3 cache - no.
• CPU voltage - 1.1-1.37 V.
• Thermal package - 105 W.
• The maximum temperature is 63 degrees.

As for the capabilities of the processor, today the Q6600 allows you to comfortably work in most programs, including quite serious ones, for example, Premiere Pro, Vegas, 3Ds Max, etc. The only thing is that the rendering speed and overall performance will be somewhere on the Middle level.

There is good news for gamers too. The processor pulls a lot of modern games, such as GTA 5, Owerwatch, PUBG, CS:GO, The Witcher 3, Battlefield 1 and more. Of course, you won’t be able to play comfortably and without brakes at ultra graphics settings, but at high and medium settings it’s quite for yourself.

Reviews and price

Reviews about the Q6600 processor show that the CPU does not actually have any serious drawbacks, except for increased heat dissipation and an outdated platform on the 775 socket. Nevertheless, the purchase of this "stone" to upgrade the old system will be a justified investment and will extend the life of the computer for at least another 2-3 years for sure.

As for the cost, at the moment you can buy a processor for 600-800 rubles on the secondary market in excellent condition, or for almost 2600 rubles, but new in the store.

Model Q8400

The second processor to be discussed is the Q8400. This model has a more modern architecture than the previous version and has more advanced features that provide the user with even greater productivity.

Description of the CPU and its characteristics

The Intel Quad Core 8400 appeared on sale in 2009, when it was no longer possible to surprise anyone on the component market with four cores. The Q8400 did not pretend to be the best or the most affordable, no, in fact it was just something in between the Q9550 and Q8200.

The characteristics of the novelty were balanced, the company promised good performance, at the level of top solutions. The 8400 operates at a frequency of 2660 MHz, plus there is the possibility of overclocking up to 3800 MHz, and with luck even up to 3900. This indicator significantly exceeds the 6600 model and the more recent 8200 and 8300. I would also like to note that in overclocking the processor almost catches up with the top 9550, which overclocked a little over 4 GHz.

In addition, a more improved 45 nm process technology and a new Yorkfield core are used here. According to these indicators, the 8400 is also better than the 66th model. The entire set of necessary instructions and technologies is also present.

As for heating, Intel has reduced the heat pack, but still a good cooling system will not hurt, especially if overclocking is planned.

Specifications of Intel Quad Core Q8400 CPU:

• Socket - LGA775.
• The number of cores is 4.
• Frequency - 2.66 GHz.
• The core name is Yorkfield.
• The manufacturing process is 45 nm.
• L1 cache - 2x64 KB.
• L2 cache - 2x2048 KB.
• L3 cache - no.
• CPU voltage - 0.85-1.36 V.
• Thermal package - 95 W.

In terms of its capabilities, the Q8400 is significantly superior to the previous model. The processor has better performance, which makes it much better at handling heavy programs. Games aren't a problem either. The power of the CPU is enough to play most modern toys without any problems at high, and sometimes even at maximum settings.

Reviews and cost

Reviews about the processor show that the Q8400 turned out to be a very successful model, which stands out from its "brothers" perfectly. Here, and good performance, and overclocking potential, and speed, and the price is fair. The only downsides are the truncated L2 cache and increased heat dissipation during overclocking. Other than that, it's a great value for your money. By the way, about the cost. You can buy this CPU for 4600 rubles new, which is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, it is better to look at the secondary market, where the price tag for 8400 is in the region of 900-1000 rubles.

Q9400

Well, the last processor for today is the Q9400. This option is perfect, first of all, for those who lack the power and performance of the 8400, but don’t want to buy a computer on a new, more modern platform, or don’t have the money. In this case, the Quad Q9400 is the perfect choice.

Model description and characteristics

This CPU went on sale in 2009, almost at the same time as the 8400. The model was positioned as one of the top versions, but in fact it itself was a “stripped down” version of the top-end Q9450 at that time. The “big brother” was more productive and cost more, so the Intel Quad Core Q9400 immediately began to gain popularity, not only because of the more affordable price tag, but also due to almost flagship characteristics.

The processor has 4 cores that operate at a frequency of 2660 MHz. Overclocking potential is present, and it is quite good. "Stone" without any special problems can be overclocked to 3800 MHz, which, in fact, will give an increase of almost 45%, and this is a very good indicator.

As for the supported instructions and technologies, the set is absolutely similar to the previous models and is in no way inferior to the older ones in the line. The processor is heated, surprisingly, not very much. Even in overclocking, the temperature is far from critical levels. This result was influenced by 2 reasons - a decrease in the second-level cache and the base frequency.

Intel Core Quad 9400 Specifications:

• Socket - LGA775.
• The number of cores is 4.
• Frequency - 2.66 GHz.
• The core name is Yorkfield.
• The manufacturing process is 45 nm.
• L1 cache - 4x64 KB.
• L2 cache - 2x3072 KB.
• L3 cache - no.
• CPU voltage - 0.85-1.36 V.
• Thermal package - 95 W.
• The maximum temperature is 72 degrees.

If we talk about the capabilities of the Intel Core 2 Quad 9400, then they are at the level of the first generation core i3-i5, which is a very good indicator. The processor can handle many modern games without any problems, and often at maximum settings (but you need a good video card). If we consider the CPU for a working computer, then there are no problems here either. At one time, there were many assemblies, specialized PCs based on the Q9400. Typically, these computers were used for 3D graphics, video editing, special effects, and so on. So if you need a good and inexpensive percentage for such purposes, 9400 will do.

This time, in order to test a new testing methodology, we deliberately chose a topic that is both quite interesting and relevant - but rather "academic" and calm. There will not be many new processors in this article, all four members belong to the same Intel Core 2 family, and the main questions raised in this test do not resemble the debate “who is stronger?”

The relevance of the topic of comparing quad-cores with dual-cores cannot be denied, since as of the time of writing the article, the price of the lower model Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) fully falls under the definition of "". Such a barrier in the Russian processor market has long been considered a decisive stage in the transition of the CPU from the group of goods for the wealthy segments of the population to the group of consumer goods. Accordingly, the temptation to purchase, albeit not very high-frequency, but at the same time a real quad-core, even for an ordinary consumer, is very great. It remains to be seen how high the expediency of such a step in terms of objective criteria. It is clear that the price of a quad-core device will still be higher than that of a dual-core device similar in terms of core and frequency, it will consume more electricity, and heat up more. Also, a quad-core processor will need a more efficient, which means either an expensive or noisy cooler, quite possibly a more powerful power supply ... in short, if all of the above is not compensated by a serious performance advantage, then it is not clear why all this is needed. We will take up the clarification of this issue.

There are only two relatively new processors among the participants - Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 based on the Wolfdale core and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 based on the Yorkfield core. For those interested in the details of these processor cores, we can recommend, which describes the differences between the Yorkfield core and the older quad-core Kentsfield core. As for the differences between Wolfdale and Conroe, they fit well into the description given in the same article, with the only exception that these processors are dual-core. Hardware and software

Test stand configuration

• The amount of memory on the stands: 4 GB (4 modules of 1 GB each);
• Hard disk: Samsung HD401LJ (SATA-2);
• Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1;
• Power supply: Cooler Master RS-A00-EMBA.

* - in multi-core processors - for one core
** - if X x Y is specified, it means "X kilobytes for each of Y cores"
*** - for AMD processors - memory controller bus frequency
**** - Intel and AMD processors are indicated differently, so it is not correct to compare directly

Software

* - this does not mean the fact that the process spawns more than one thread, but the presence of two or more simultaneously active threads in the process of executing testsTesting

Necessary Preface to Diagrams

The form of presenting the results in the testing methodology we use has two features: first, all data types are reduced to one - integer relative scores (the performance of the processor under consideration relative to the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, if the speed of the latter is taken as 100 points), and, secondly, secondly, detailed results are presented in the form of a table in Microsoft Excel format, the article contains only summary charts by benchmark classes. However, sometimes we will draw your attention to detailed results if they deserve it.

Professional test group

3D modeling packages

In this group, quad-core processors outwardly feel very good (the advantage over dual-core processors is impressive), but if we look at the detailed results, it becomes clearer where it comes from in the average score. Of course, due to tests for rendering speed. It's no secret that the rendering process is perfectly parallelized on a very large number of processors, and at the same time the gain achieved is close to ideal (100% for each new core). If we turn to tests for the speed of interactive work with applications for 3D modeling, then things are not so rosy for quad-core processors, and the speed increase is limited to numbers around 10%.

CAD/CAM packages

An excellent illustration of the absolute uselessness of 4-core processors in relation to the software considered in this subgroup. You can't imagine anything more spectacular: the E6600 has as many points as the Q6600, and the E7200 has the same score as the Q9300. The user's choice is obvious: "modest" dual cores, preferably based on the new Wolfdale core.

Compilation

On the one hand, it cannot be said that there is no difference between quad-core and dual-core processors, on the other hand, it is not so great. We monitored the processor load during the compilation of this project (which is about 30 minutes), and noticed that the moments when all four cores are involved are quite rare and short, and the pauses between them, when only one core is really working, on the contrary, are quite long . However, the project, from the point of view of the modern style of writing programs in C ++, is quite typical - apparently, the features of its compilation are quite typical.

Professional photography

The second test, in which quad-core processors were able to "roam freely". On average, 30% of the winnings come from four cores compared to two! Of course, someone may object that, they say, ideally, this figure should be close to 100% ... However, let's be realistic: today, even 30% is a very good figure, and very rare.

Scientific and mathematical packages

Scientific and mathematical software does not shine with quad-core optimization: even if we look at the detailed results, it is clear that the maximum that can be obtained from an additional pair of cores is a performance increase of about 10%.

web server

Since we use two benchmarks, one of which (PHP Calculator) is more thread-oriented, the other (PHPSpeed) rarely uses even two cores - accordingly, the average score is somewhere between these two extremes. Indeed, in PHP Calculator, 4-core processors get almost 100% performance increase, while in PHPSpeed, the performance of a single core as such mainly “plays”.

Overall "professional" score

The difference between dual-core and quad-core in each of our conditional competing pairs was 10 points. On the one hand, this indicates that this result is definitely not the result of chance or measurement error. On the other hand, 10-11% speedup as compensation for doubling the number of cores is not very impressive ... However, let's not forget that the total score is nothing more than "average temperature in the hospital." If we turn to the charts with detailed results, two groups are clearly visible that stand out against the general mediocre background - these are programs for 3D modeling and professional work with photos (in the face of Adobe Photoshop). In these groups, the results of the quad cores are really impressive. To be honest, the rest of the software from our “professional group” still does not need four cores ...

Amateur/Home Test Group

Archivers

The second group of tests, in which the victory of the new kernel over the old one, caused us strong doubts, since archivers, like compilers, are very fond of a large cache. However, doubts turned out to be in vain: even with a smaller volume of L2, the new Wolfdale/Yorkfield core performed quite well. On the diagram, its representatives are even ahead - but let's not forget that they also have a higher frequency. We would say "combat draw". Only WinRAR seems to be able to extract at least minimal benefit from four cores (see detailed results).

Media encoding

A funny result: in encoding media data, the dual-core on the new core almost caught up with the quad-core on the old one! Quite an eloquent illustration of the state of affairs in this class of software. A look at the table with detailed results reveals two codecs that, with varying degrees of success, are still able to use four cores: these are DivX (although the result is not very impressive) and x264 (an excellent result - almost 2x speedup when switching from 2 cores to 4).

Games

If you look at the table with detailed results, you can quite easily identify the main "champions" of true multi-core (not limited to two cores) optimization. These are two games: Unreal Tournament 3 (the gain of a quad-core player over a spirit-core one of similar characteristics is from 26 to 40 percent) and World in Conflict (on average, quad-core players have 12% of the gain). The rest are much more modest, although we can single out Crysis (an average of 5% gain for quad-cores) and Call of Duty 4 (for some reason, the difference between 4- and 2-cores is visible only in processors with an old core). Those 7 points of advantage that are visible in the diagram with a summary score in the pairs of E6600/Q6600 and E7200/Q9300 are the merit almost exclusively of Unreal Tournament 3. The rest of the games are practically unable to load the processor with four cores.

Amateur photo work

Quad-core processors are ahead, and if you look at the table with detailed results, it's immediately clear why: Paint.NET's excellent multi-threaded optimization allows quad-core processors to outperform dual-core processors almost twice in this test. However, note that in all other applications there is no significant benefit from the additional two cores.

Overall "amateur" score

In the pairs "dual-core - dual-core" and "quad-core - quad-core", we see an almost identical picture, which clearly illustrates the advantage of new cores over old ones: Q6600 lost 6 points to Q9300, E6600 lost 6 points to E7200. In the pairs "old dual-core - old quad-core" and "new dual-core - new quad-core", the situation is completely similar: both there and there the superiority of quad-cores by 9 points. Is it a lot or a little? It depends on whether you are ready to pay at least one and a half times more for these 9 points ... The only thing we can confidently state is that in the “pro” score, the advantage of quad-core over dual-core is one point more than in “ home." Which, however, is not surprising: “heavy” processors love heavy tasks.

Estimated power consumption*

* - in fact, it is not the power consumption of the processor that is measured, but the power consumption of the VRM on the motherboard, so the values ​​\u200b\u200bthat we obtained may differ in b about on the other side, since the efficiency of VRM is not equal to 100%.

At rest

The results of the E7200 and Q9300 are not particularly surprising - it is clear that processors manufactured using 45nm technology will consume less than 65nm ones. However, one particularly spectacular comparison is impressive: the larger clocked 4-core Q9300 consumes less at rest than the smaller clocked and also 2-core E6600.

At 100% load state

The situation repeats itself: a quad-core on the new Yorkfield core and under 100% load still consumes less than a dual-core Conroe. Conclusion

The new core, obviously, turned out to be much faster than the old one. The main “victims” in this case turned out to be the old quad-core Kentsfield processors: not a very large number of software can use all four cores, and then the dual-core processors have also been updated, so much so that the dual-core Wolfdale, comparable in frequency to the quad-core Kentsfield, turns out to be on average quite compare with it in terms of performance (what is a 3% difference in performance with a more than one and a half times difference in price? ..) However, two groups of users do not have to worry about their investments: those who work with 3D modeling packages and Adobe Photoshop. In these programs, four cores outperform two almost always.

Looking at the final diagram, it becomes obvious that the situation has not changed radically: dual-core Core 2 (especially Wolfdale) are still the most reasonable choice within this family, it makes sense to take quad-core processors exclusively for a specific application - while being 100% confident that this application will be able to effectively use all four cores. And even attractive prices for lower models can hardly be a significant argument in favor of choosing a quad-core processor if you are not 100% sure that its performance in the software you need will meet your expectations.

If you haven't tested their specific tasks on the subject of acceleration from switching from two cores to four, and did not receive an unambiguously positive, significant acceleration as a result - then, most likely, succumbing to fashion trends, a significant increase from using a quad-core instead of a dual-core, you today don't get. This is the general trend at the moment. And the particulars that refute it are precisely that particulars. They take advantage of those who know exactly what they want from the processor, and how much their "favorite" applications are able to use it.

Actually, if we recall the recent past - such a situation was at the very beginning of the triumphant march of dual-core processors. All repeats…

Hello everyone I really like the Q9650 processor and I wanted to take it at one time, but I didn’t manage to do it that way. The thing is that I had a task - to buy a computer, not very powerful, but to be like that, normal. I just used to have a completely frivolous computer by modern standards - based on the Pentium 4 670 processor, and although this is the most powerful single-core Intel processor, of course I didn’t have enough of it

And then the hour came, I had almost the entire amount for new hardware, but then the thought crept into my head, and whether to take the hardware on the 775th socket. Yes, it's used, but I can take everything top. I thought for a long time which is better - a modern 1150 socket, but a budget processor, or a 775th socket and a top-end processor along with the same top-end motherboard. As a result, I had to take the 1150th socket only because of two reasons: I needed high stability, long-term operation of the motherboard and at the same time not to eat a lot of energy, because my computer works 24 hours a day and it should work stably for years. Here I had to take the 1150th socket, or to be more precise, the Pentium G3220 and the Asus Gryphon Z87 motherboard. So I managed to take the G3220, while the G3250 cost a little more, but there was an unlocked multiplier.

Okay, back to the Q9650. So, why do I like this processor. It is based on the Yorkfield core, and this is the latest core on socket 775. Made according to the 45 nm process technology, has a 12 MB L2 cache, although in fact these are two blocks of 6 MB each. Operates at a frequency of 3 GHz.

But the most important thing is 4 cores and the ability to overclock, the processor runs perfectly up to 4 GHz even with air cooling, you just need a good heatsink. But I won’t say that all revisions of the processor are chasing perfectly, here you need to smoke forums ..

Here is what the CPU-Z program shows about the Q9650:

That's where Core Speed ​​is, here you can see that the processor is overclocked to 3.8 GHz, so to speak, this is non-aggressive, safe overclocking, in which the processor can work stably for a long time without failures. The temperature during this overclocking only slightly increases (but a good radiator is still needed).

Four cores with a slight overclock will certainly increase the TDP of the processor, but it's worth it. Model Q9650 even in 2016 can be used in a gaming computer. Some might say that the Q9650 and games are a thing of the past, but I don't think so. You can go to YouTube and watch videos there and make sure that, for example, GTA 5, Q9650 calmly pulls at maximum speeds. Of course, you need a good video card, but do not forget that the Q9650 was released 8 years ago, after all, this is a respectable age, but GTA 5 pulls without problems!

So the Q9650 and games are more than reality, with normal overclocking and a normal amount of RAM, you can still play and play. Moreover, there are motherboards that officially support 16 GB of RAM!

The Q9650 runs on a 1333 MHz bus, which is certainly not the maximum, well, that is, not 1600, but only the QX9770 works on it, which is prohibitively hot and gluttonous by nature.

But how much does the Q9650 cost now? In principle, its price is about $ 50, maybe a little more. For overclocking, I also advise taking the model and Q9450. It's just that if you choose a top-end processor, it's better that there is a maximum cache, for example, in the Q9500 model, the cache is not 12 mb, but 6 mb, keep this in mind.

And what about server processors, what is the Q9650 analogue in the Xeon family? Well, for example, the Xeon E5450 model, it is almost the same as the Q9650, except perhaps ... There is one point that not everyone pays attention to, this is the core. In the Q9650, as I already wrote, there is the Yorkfield core, but in the Xeon E5450, there is already Harpertown (Code Name field):

How much better or worse it is, I can’t say anything, but it seems to be the same in terms of performance. But the Xeon E5450 has a significant plus - unlike the Q9650, where the TDP is 95 watts, in the E5450 - 80 watts. With the same characteristics, the heat dissipation of the E5450 is less, which means the percentage is colder

But keep in mind that in order to put a server Xeon into a regular motherboard, you first need to have the chipset of the motherboard support this processor. And if it does, then you also need to install a modified special BIOS. Next, you still need to cut off the keys in the socket, because they are located differently on server motherboards. In general, there are already a lot of manuals on this topic on the Internet, the main thing here is direct hands, caution and not in a hurry

In many tests that can be found on the Internet, you can see that the Q9650 is close in performance to the Core i7 920. Just do not confuse the i7 920 (by the way, it has 4 cores, but 8 threads), which runs on the old 1366 socket with new models i7. For example, i7 on socket 1151 is more powerful than Q9650, probably twice, if not more..

Here are examples of different tests that can make it clear what the Q9650 is like compared to other models:

What can be the conclusion? Q9650 is still a good processor, especially if you overclock it and with good cooling, you can still play on it for a while. If you buy water cooling, scalp the Q9650, you can overclock it to 4.4 GHz or even more, but again, you need to dig on the Internet on this topic, or more precisely, dig for the most successful revision of the Q9650 for overclocking.

In general, the 775th can still give good performance, especially when there are 16 gigs of RAM and an SSD drive on board. An SSD, even if connected to SATA 2, is still several times faster than hard drives, even if they are in a RAID 0 array. Usually, users simply don’t pay attention to it, they look at the linear speed of the SSD, while the SSD chip is at random access speed. That is, reading small files on an SSD, even on the first SATA revision, will be several times faster than on the fastest modern WD VelociRaptor hard drive.

Well, all the guys, I hope that this info was useful to you, good luck to you and good mood

Hello dear readers, this review will be the last one dedicated to socket 775, so to speak, the final part of the trilogy. We started with a budget single-core Celeron, and we will finish with a full-fledged quad-core quad. The processor has a frequency of 2.33Ghz, as well as 4 megabytes of cache in the second level.

Core 2 Quad

The processor appeared in January 2007, it was created based on the design of Kentsfield cores and was called the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. Soon, in July 2007, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 processor was released, which had an increased frequency from 2400 to 2667 MHz. 65 nm process technology was not enough for processors with four cores, so processors based on the Kentsfield core did not gain popularity. Everything changed only in March 2008, when new processors based on Yorkfield went on sale. The Yorkfield core was already manufactured using the 45nm process technology, as a result of which the power consumption of these processors was significantly lower, which made it possible to significantly increase the range of the Intel Core 2 Quad family. In March 2009, production of Kentsfield chips was discontinued. Yorkfield chip production came to an end on February 7, 2011. The Intel Core 2 Quad line of processors was the last in LGA775 performance.

Specifications

* Name: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200
* Socket: LGA 775
* Core: Yorkfield
* Process technology: 45nm
* Number of cores: 4
* Clock frequency: 2333MHz
* System bus: 1333 MHz
* Multiplication factor: x7
* L1 cache size: 64 KB
* L2 cache size: 4096 KB
* Instructions: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4
* Heat dissipation: 95W
* Maximum operating temperature: 71.4 °C

Test PC:
Motherboard: ASRock P43Twins 1600
Power supply: 450 watts
RAM: Kingston 4GB DDR3 1333Hz
Cooling: Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Evo
Video card: Sapphire Radeon HD7850 2GB
Storage: SSD 60GB + HDD 2TB
Windows XP SP3

Arctic Cooling MX-2 thermal paste acts as a thermal interface

Appearance

All important information is located on the heat-removing cover: processor frequency 2.33 GHz, 4 MB L2 cache, system bus frequency 1333 MHz. The processor requires a motherboard with a power module that complies with PCG 05A.

(img:1:click:big)

At the bottom of the processor is a contact pad for Socket 775

(img:2:click:big)

Processor installed with thermal paste applied.

(img:3:click:big)

Performance Testing

We measure the temperature at idle and at maximum load.

(img:4:click:medium) (img:5:click:medium)

Hot stone, the maximum temperature on the core was 69 degrees.

Refine the characteristics in the CPU-Z program

(img:25:click:medium) (img:26:click:medium)

Fritz Chess Benchmark

This program loads the processor by calculating chess combinations.

(img:6:click:medium)

Super Pi , the program loads the processor by calculating the number Pi.

(img:7:click:medium)

The processor spent 126 seconds to calculate 4 million decimal places.

ArtMoney PRO

Let's check the speed of memory scanning using the ArtMoney PRO program

(img:8:click:medium)

WinRar 5.00

(img:9:click:medium)

Unigine Heaven Benchmark

Heaven Benchmark is a computer program, a benchmark, developed by the Russian company UNIGINE Corp. based on Unigine's own engine. Designed to test the graphics subsystem of a personal computer in order to determine its performance.

(img:10:click:medium)

Cinebench R11.5

A benchmark that simulates the development of realistic 3D scenes and special effects for the film industry, based on the engine of the famous CINEMA4D product using the power of the central processor.

(img:11:click:big)

Dolphin R7719

Dolphin is a software emulator for the Nintendo Wii game console. Since the emulator is demanding on processor resources, a test will be carried out in it using the example of the Sonic Colors game.

(img:12:click:big)

The result was 16 frames per second, the game is pretty slow.

Serious Sam 3

(img:13:click:big)

The game gives out 24fps, brakes are observed, but in general it is playable.

Max Payne 3

(img:14:click:big)

The frame rate was 28 per second. The game runs smoothly, without sudden jumps.

Overclocking

Let's start dispersing this stone. The processor multiplier can only take two values ​​x6 and x7, so we'll limit ourselves to bus overclocking. The maximum frequency at which the processor was launched was 3.04Ghz, however, program errors occur at this frequency, although much less frequently than on overclocked Celerons. The maximum frequency at which the processor turned out to be stable was 2.89Ghz, it was at this frequency that the S&M v1.9.1 program did not generate errors, and the system was running without deviations. The voltage was increased to 1.4v.

(img:27:click:medium)

Let's measure the temperature of the processor in full load.

(img:15:click:medium)

overheating, however. Such high temperatures depress the impression of overclocking. On the other hand, the processor was warmed up by the benchmark, and in everyday work it is unlikely that you will come across a program that will continuously load the processor at 100% for half an hour. However, it does not hurt to make sure, for this I lower the frequency to 2.77Ghz. At this frequency, there is less heating, as well as an additional precaution against possible errors. However, all tests will be done at 2.89Ghz.

Fritz Chess Benchmark

(img:16:click:medium)

super pi

(img:17:click:medium)

ArtMoney PRO

(img:18:click:medium)

WinRar 5.00

(img:19:click:medium)

Based on the results obtained, the increase in processor performance was 10-15%

Unigine Heaven Benchmark

(img:20:click:medium)

Overclocking the processor did not at all give an increase in speed in the graphics test (0.1fps does not count).

Cinebench R11.5

(img:21:click:big)

Dolphin R7719

(img:22:click:big)

The game began to run a little smoother, getting an additional 4 frames per second.

Serious Sam 3

(img:23:click:big)

The increase in the frequency of the processor with this game was felt more strongly, now the game produces a stable 30 frames.

Max Payne 3

(img:24:click:big)

A significant increase in speed, an increase of 10 frames per second.

Conclusion

A productive processor on socket 775, gradually fading into oblivion. You can still find it on sale, and if you have an old Celeron, and spending money on a complete upgrade of PC components is not in your plans, then this processor is a great chance to upgrade.

High performance
+ Reliability, stability

High heat dissipation

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this review, happy shopping.