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
Amen brother, I had the Athlon 64 when it ruled, but now i have E8400 since it smokes AMD's best...So I guess I am an AMD/Intel Fan BOY!!!
No offense but this artlicle had a very strong slant towards AMD, even though Intel destroys their newest and best with a 1+ year old chip. Dont you find that the least bit odd....? If anyone is sounding like a "Fanboy" I would say it would have to be you Mr. Crusader for AMD. LOL
Dude when you get to where I am you will see, it doesnt matter what the fluff is, get the FACTS and decide with your dollars there... Sheesh...
AssBall - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I thought it was a very well written article. I didn't get any OMGAMDFTW out of it like you apparently did. Your "Man" would not be up already if AMD wasn't still churning these new procs out. Good luck finding those special Intel prices then.Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
> We get the impression that there are some speed paths that could be optimized on the current B2 and B3 Phenoms that simply aren't because of a very sensible thought process.I'm wondering why those speed paths haven't been fixed before the first launch. Certainly it wasn't good for AMD to only introduce them at low clock frequencies.
Visual - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
It's really disheartening for a "fanboy" like me to see AMD beaten all over the board again.I may very well build a system or two with AMD parts because of the 780G chipset and its great budget video performance, but for a full-blown performance system i'll certainly go with Intel now.
AMD better hurry up with their 45nm tech, its way overdue.
Griswold - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
"AMD better hurry up with their 45nm tech, its way overdue."You're right, Intel has been selling 45nm parts for like a year now... oh wait, no they havent.
If you meant overdue as in they need it to (hopefully) achieve higher clock speeds and lower power consumption in addition to lower production cost, then you got that right.
If they keep their schedule with 45nm, they will have narrowed the gap between process shrinks vs. intel a bit again - which is good. But things like that dont happen overnight.
MoonRocket - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Can anyone identify the case on the 3ghz where are you page?Looks interesting.
AmberClad - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
It looks like the CoolerMaster Stacker 830 to me.dnz - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
We musn't forget how great an overclocker the Q6600 is. My system is running at 3.2GHz (8x400) and I'm using cheap DDR2-800 RAM. The Q9300 may have some advantages but overclocking it is going to require some VERY expensive RAM.Griswold - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
First you'll need an good mobo that can deliver high FSB for these 45nm quads. RAM is secondary (can always use a divider if needed).ui5200 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Maybe this will cause intel to finally release the latest Dual and Quad core chips (oh like the E8400 that's been 'out of stock' for months)? Or is this another paper launch ?