The Yorkfield (Q9300, Q9450, Q9550) Review Thread

[Tejstar]

I, like many, have been waiting to see how the Q9450 fares and I came across the first review today, from HardwareZone. Okay, so it's not one of the big sites but it has plenty of graphs comparing Kentsfield against Yorkfield and gives a good idea of what to expect.

I thought it'd be good to keep all the reviews of these chips in one place. There are hardly any out right now, but I'll try and keep this post updated so we have a reference point.

Q9300

ExtremeTech - Quad Core Showdown: AMD Phenom X4 9850 vs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300

X-bit labs - The Youngest of Yorkfields: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor Review

Q9450 & Q9550

HardwareZone - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9450 - 45nm Prevails

 

[tetsuo]

Shame the second review didnt include the q9300

 

[Tejstar]

Here's some of the graphs from the HardwareZone review:

 

[rulocal]

They didn't clock them

 

[rulocal]

This table from the 9300 review is a very compelling argument as to why gamers should go dual core if they are happy to upgrade in, say, a year.

 

[J.D]

They didn't clock them

That's what I was wanting to see .

Clock for clock comparisons.

That is pretty decent from the dualies .

 

[Mana]

hmm i wanna see how my [email protected] does against the fastest, might have to download their benchmark tools.

 

[tetsuo]

This table from the 9300 review is a very compelling argument as to why gamers should go dual core if they are happy to upgrade in, say, a year.

Yea there's some pretty big gains there.

 

[rulocal]

Yea there's some pretty big gains there.

It is even more compelling when you consider how much extra overclocking headroom the 8500 has. However, the main flaw in the argument is that the game scores are absolutely fine with the 9300 and will become GPU dependent at higher resolutions anyway.

 

[Cob]

we have a reference point.


Q9450 & Q9550

HardwareZone - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9450 - 45nm Prevails

No pics or CPU-Z screenshots of either a Q9550 or Q9450 in that review, and it's really odd that they claim to have been able to get their hands on both those CPU's, but not the far more common Q9300

Seems to me that they've just used a QX9650 with the multiplier set to x7.5 and x8. And ofcourse they can't do that to represent a Q9300 as it has only half the cache, so they avoided it. Other places have been doing the same for months now, but they admit that they are using a QX9650 to represent the lower-clocked processors.

 

[clocka]

That's what I was wanting to see .

Clock for clock comparisons.

That is pretty decent from the dualies .

incorrect mate...

Q9300 = 2.5ghz
E8500 = 3.16ghz

Here is 2.5ghz Q9300 vs 2.4ghz Q6600 which their respective frequencies:

as the q9300 is 5% faster (due to extra 100mhz) you should take approx 5% off each of the percentages above as they didnt do a 2.5ghz vs 2.5ghz comparison

 

[Cyber-Mav]

However, the main flaw in the argument is that the game scores are absolutely fine with the 9300 and will become GPU dependent at higher resolutions anyway.

bingo

 

[Cyber-Mav]

incorrect mate...

Q9300 = 2.5ghz
E8500 = 3.16ghz

Here is 2.5ghz Q9300 vs 2.4ghz Q6600 which their respective frequencies:

as the q9300 is 5% faster (due to extra 100mhz) you should take approx 5% off each of the percentages above as they didnt do a 2.5ghz vs 2.5ghz comparison

and lets no forget the bus speed advantage too for the 9300, 1333 vs 1066

 

[J.D]

incorrect mate...

Q9300 = 2.5ghz
E8500 = 3.16ghz

Here is 2.5ghz Q9300 vs 2.4ghz Q6600 which their respective frequencies:

as the q9300 is 5% faster (due to extra 100mhz) you should take approx 5% off each of the percentages above as they didnt do a 2.5ghz vs 2.5ghz comparison

Well there was nothing to indicate the speeds of the CPU's and who in their right mind would have put 4 slower cores vs 2 faster ones for a comparison shot? , pretty stupid and pointless tbh. It didn't even say stock and I thought with a dual CPU getting compared to a Quad that the frequencies would have been matched.

 

[rulocal]

Well there was nothing to indicate the speeds of the CPU's and who in their right mind would have put 4 slower cores vs 2 faster ones for a comparison shot? , pretty stupid and pointless tbh. It didn't even say stock and I thought with a dual CPU getting compared to a Quad that the frequencies would have been matched.

The 9300 vs 8500 is a match up of similairly priced cpus. Surely that is more relevant than clock speed?

 

[J.D]

The 9300 vs 8500 is a match up of similairly priced cpus. Surely that is more relevant than clock speed?

Not to me . This is an overclockers forum. We want these chips pushed to a limit they both can reach and then benched as that's what most of people that visit the CPU/Graphic section want to see. What do you think when people get these CPU's in their machines?. Overclock them of course.

Two of them benched at 3.6Ghz and tested would have been better.

I'll be sticking with dual core until more games take use of it as Unreal Tournament 3 runs perfectly and that is help by quad so there would be no noticeable improvement. I don't play Supreme Commander and Alan Wake isn't even out yet.

 

[Corasik]

The 9300 vs 8500 is a match up of similairly priced cpus. Surely that is more relevant than clock speed?

9300 is closer matched to the 8400, the 9450 and the 8500 would have been a fairer match, the prices being closer. As the 9450 has the full cache, rathe than the budget 9300 model it might have done better even though it would still be 2.66ghz quad V 3.16ghz dual.

 

[Tejstar]

I've added the latest review I've found which compares Q9300 against the AMD Phenom X4 9850 from ExtremeTech (included in the first post).

 

[Tejstar]

OCC has a review of the Q9450.