Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Core 2 Quad Q9300: Benchmarked
When Intel launched the Core 2 Quad Q6600 it was an instant hit in the enthusiast community. You didn't have to give up much in clock speed over an equivalently priced dual core (only 266MHz), but you got four very fast cores to do with what you will. When Intel unveiled its 45nm quad core QX9650 we were excited, but what we really wanted was the Q6600's successor.
We knew from looking at Intel's roadmaps that its successor would be the Q9300, priced at $266 (identical to the Q6600, at least on paper) this would be the new Q6600. We had 45nm quad core chips on hand, but we couldn't simulate the Q9300, the table below explains why:
| Clock Speed | L2 Cache Size | FSB | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | 2.66GHz | 12MB | 1333MHz |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 | 2.50GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 2.40GHz | 8MB | 1066MHz |
While all of the other 45nm quad core CPUs have 12MB of L2 cache on chip (6MB L2 per pair of cores x 2 pairs of cores = 12MB), the Q9300 only has 6MB (3MB L2 per pair of cores x 2 pair = 6MB). The 6MB is also less than the 8MB on the Q6600, but the Q9300 runs 100MHz faster, has a 1333MHz FSB (vs. 1066MHz) and all of the minor architectural tweaks present in Penryn. The question then becomes, is the Q9300 any faster at all than the Q6600?
The new Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
Thankfully we can finally find out. The Q9300 just started shipping and you can now buy them from Newegg, but as we mentioned before they carry a 12% price premium due to limited supply. Assuming that the pricing issues get fixed next quarter, let's see how the Q9300 behaves as a Q6600 successor:
The 7.4% average performance increase over the Q6600 isn't bad at all, especially if we're looking at price-parity. The Q9300 sell becomes even easier when you look at power data:
| System Idle Power | System Load Power | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 | 113W | 154W |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 136W | 210W |
The Q9300 can be noticeably faster than the Q6600 depending on the benchmark, and it does so while consuming significantly less power. We'd say that makes a pretty good successor to the first affordable quad core CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What!!!! How darest though speak such blasphemy!AMD is your king! Bow to PHENOM!!! :) LOL
sorry feeling a little silly today.
hvypetals - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Why are the Intel core 2 duo's outperforming the intel quad core cpus?Is it because the games cant see beyond a dual core?
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Thats why I got the E8400 and clocked it to 3.6 ghz, it was cheap and it does very well for gamers....ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Oh wait I could have saved 20 bucks and got a much slower AMD. Crap...ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Then I would have had an AWESOME slow CPU instead of a CRAPPY much faster CPU....Roy2001 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
Wow, that's superb logic!fitten - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Most games can't "see beyond" one core, much less two, three, or four.nycromes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
This is what I expected from AMD and from all of you here making comments. It has always astounded me that people will act like these chips are the equivalent of a 500mhz chip compared to Intel's chips. Its like saying my car has 375hp and yours only has 370, my car is soo much better than yours. The difference is there, but for most people, the difference is quite negligable.The differences amount to almost nothing depending on application. Sure there are better parts out there, but competition drives markets to innovate and will bring down prices. Oh how awful. The intel fanboys can ride their high horses still, but AMD releasing better products benefits us all. Try taking your heads out of that little box and looking at the big picture.
I like to see AMD working on new products and hopefully they can get more competitive. We all need to be hoping for this so we don't see slowdowns in development and skyrocketing chip prices. I mean, look at the GPU industry compared to a few years ago and tell me that the situation is great for consumers. More competition = happier consumers. nuf said.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
you are right, and you obviously dont game. Intel=FPS=FTWmark3450 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What a complete strawman. Look at the data, the best Phenom chip is getting beated by the q6600 by 20% in real world performance, not the 1% in your idotic horsepower strawman attack.Yes everyone understands that the lack of competion isn't good. The reason people bitch at AMD is that they want AMD to have a competative offereing, but that data clear says they don't. They know because of that there isn't going to be any competition in the CPU market for a long time. Yes that isn't good, but sticking your head in the sand and denying the reality of the situation doesn't help.