• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Any reviews for E6600 vs E8500 vs Q6600 vs Q9450

Tests done in comparison with a Q9300.

Click here:- X-bit Labs - The Youngest of Yorkfields: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor Review

We have already complained that quad-core processors support is not being adopted by gaming applications fast enough. The result is clearly seen on the diagrams: Core 2 Quad Q9300 is very often falling behind its dual-core competitor at default frequencies as well as during overclocking.

This situation is completely different from what we saw with previous generation processors on 65nm cores. Since Conroe and Kentsfield both overclocked to pretty similar frequencies, overclocked Core 2 Quad Q6600 ran neck and neck with overclocked Core 2 Duo E6850 even in games not optimized for quad-core. Now Core 2 Quad Q9300 cannot catch up with the overclocked Core 2 Duo E8500, so that overclocked have to face a really hard choice between a dual- and a quad-core processor.

Moreover, gaming benchmarks results reveal one more problem. During overclocking Core 2 Quad Q9300 sometimes falls not only behind its dual-core counterpart, but also behind its predecessor running at 3.6GHz frequency. This makes things even more confusing.


Gaming Performance

3dm-1.png
3dm-2.png


q4.png
hl2.png


crysys.png
wic.png
 
Last edited:
crazyDAJT said:
so the Q9300, is approximately 0.1GHz better in benchmarking. and is £70 odd more expensive.

EDIT: sorry, forgot to say compared to the Q6600
Click to expand...

Well, I think those results (the overclocked ones) say that a Yorkfield at 3.5Ghz is as quick as a Kentsfield at 3.6Ghz...?

Or, to put it another way, the Yorkfield is giving away approx 3% in clock speed, but performing the same.

So, in those benchmarks, it's about 3% faster clock for clock.
 
I guess that question would be best directed at x-bit labs...

I guess you're really asking why haven't they run comparisons between the Kentsfield and Yorkfield using a video encoding app that uses SSE4?

I don't know which apps use SSE4 yet, but I've found a quick comparison that shows a Conroe vs Wolfdale in an SSE4 benchmark.

http://www.iax-tech.com/cpu/e8400/08.htm

Don't know how reliable it is, but assuming the same applies to Kentsfield vs Yorkfield, the new Q9XXX chips should blow the Q6XXX chips into the weeds if the app uses SSE4 instructions for video encoding?
 
The info is their within the actual link in the first thread, I just posted the actual gaming tables, it's an interesting read.

easyrider said:
Why is there no encoding comparisons?
Click to expand...

Encoding

Video codec copes pretty well with multi-threaded workload that is why quad-core processors show their real best in corresponding benchmarks. Core 2 Quad Q9300 outperforms dual-core processors in all tests except audio encoding into MP3 format (that uses maximum two cores). However, the balance between Core 2 Quad Q9300 working at 3.5GHz and Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.6GHz is not always steady. For example, XviD 1.2 codec works faster in a system with an older CPU despite all the improvements and enhancements of the new Yorkfield processor. But when the new versions of these codecs start supporting SSE4.1 instructions, Core 2 Quad Q9300 should become a more confident winner.

itunes.png
divx.png


xvid.png
h264.png
 
Very interesting results, virtually no difference at all between the Q9300 3.5Ghz and Q6600 3.6Ghz. Looks like the performance advantage is only 100Mhz rather than 400Mhz as originally rumoured.
 
steve258 said:
Very interesting results, virtually no difference at all between the Q9300 3.5Ghz and Q6600 3.6Ghz. Looks like the performance advantage is only 100Mhz rather than 400Mhz as originally rumoured.
Click to expand...

I reckon those results are guff.

There is a thread over in XS that show differnt with a Q9450 and Q6600 at the same clock speed of 3.6ghz
 
steve258 said:
Very interesting results, virtually no difference at all between the Q9300 3.5Ghz and Q6600 3.6Ghz. Looks like the performance advantage is only 100Mhz rather than 400Mhz as originally rumoured.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, it's what I found when comparing my E8400 to an E4300 at the same clock speed.

We'll know soon enough when there are more chips about and the well regarded benchmark places report back using retail chips, and not just engineering samples.
 
Are you in a mood again easy?! :D

Chill out man...

Rest assured that your new CPU purchase will perform swimmingly at Video Encoding using SSE4 instructions, which I believe is what you want it for? For the rest of the computing world, it will be a little better than what is around at the moment.

You seem a little defensive of the Yorkfield CPU? Or am I just imagining it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom