Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz

[Rob Williams]

The wait for an affordable 45nm Quad-Core is now over, and the Q9450 promises to become the ultimate choice of the new offerings. It's not much slower than the QX9650, offers 12MB of cache and as expected, has some fantastic overclocking ability. How does 3.44GHz stable sound?

You can read the full review here and discuss it here!

Just to let you know what to test in linux, for multi-core benchmarks, there is a parallel implementation of the bzip2 utility, http://compression.ca/pbzip2/ , that makes use of every core it finds.

Thanks for such a great review !

[Merlin]

Damn, What a review....it would take me three weeks to do this.
Do you even sleep.....lol

Since I have the Q9450 and the E8400.... I can see the differences.
But those that paid the high end 1,000.00 Plus for the high end chip are probably not going to want to see the comparisons. Since for one third the price you can overclock the Q9450 just a tad and get the same results.
I'm quite happy with both CPUs...I almost tried, what was the latest AMD CPU. And then went with the Q9450.

When I get a little more time, I'll get into overclocking the Q9450...I have been doing Spring cleaning outside in the yard and setting up the security system cameras

Merlin

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by josetesan

Just to let you know what to test in linux, for multi-core benchmarks, there is a parallel implementation of the bzip2 utility, http://compression.ca/pbzip2/ , that makes use of every core it finds.

Thanks for such a great review !

I am not sure how I overlooked this, thanks a lot for the link! I'll give it a test and see if the results are consistent, and if so, I'll begin using it.

Originally Posted by Merlin

Damn, What a review....it would take me three weeks to do this.
Do you even sleep.....lol

Since I have the Q9450 and the E8400.... I can see the differences.
But those that paid the high end 1,000.00 Plus for the high end chip are probably not going to want to see the comparisons. Since for one third the price you can overclock the Q9450 just a tad and get the same results.
I'm quite happy with both CPUs...I almost tried, what was the latest AMD CPU. And then went with the Q9450.

Well, this review was a little easier than most. A few weeks ago, I spent around ten days rebenchmarking our entire line-up, so the results here are straight from the E7200. It helps a lot to bench two new CPUs at once (lot easier on the nerves ;-)).

As for the higher-end chips... it's true. There is just not THAT much of a difference there. But for those who want the ultimate for what's available, and also the ultimate for overclocking, the higher-end chip might be a better fit.

Hello there, may i say thank-you for that excellent review of yours on the Q9450; however, i do think i shall stay with my lucky Q6600. With thermalright 120 Ex (med fan), patriot ddr2 9600, Asus Maximus Formula, XFX-8800GTS G92, and (same HD and PSU), I managed (9 x 440=3960) with 3DMark2006 16,600, Aquamark3 (9 x 445=4020) 224,256, michael

Post Script: I have the score saved but cannot place it in this reply : (

[Kougar]

Michael, mind posting the FSB, CPU, northbridge, and GTL reference voltages for your overclock? That's rather impressive!

Hello again, Kougar i used the important settings as described in this AnandTech article called ASUS Maximus Formula SE: X38 and DDR2 Unite!
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3149&p=1

I ran many tests of the benchies (aquamark3, and 3dmark '06)
again earlier today. For simplicity sake (and time) i kept all voltages at the same settings.

fsb strap to northbridge @400
CPU Voltage @1.5375 Note: 470 fsb x 8 = 3760 needed 1.49v approx
NB Voltage @1.67
CPU PLL Voltage @1.74
FSB Termination Voltage @1.56
Dram Voltage @2.30
SB Voltage @1.175
CPU GTL Reference @0.63x
NB GTL Reference @0.67%
Transaction Booster: Set to enable and zero as the boost level setting (just like in article)
PCI-E Frequency: I set this somewhere between 100-114, with no clue at any setting (118 in article did not post; hence, i just used less)

Note: Although i disabled Dram Static Read (to enable stability over a higher o/c), i did not see a difference either way.

It would seem that the asus mobo has a beta bios (1004) that can hit higher levels but is more unstable than the 0907 bios. For instance, i can run through aquamark3 @ 4GHz with the beta bios but only 3.987 GHz with the 0907 bios. Furthermore, upon hitting 9 x 443 = 3.987GHz today my new APC kinda had enough. I received an error message saying, "Your
battery backup is overloaded. This means that your unit will not be able to support your PC in the event of a power problem." Dunno why that happened because the stuff that i have plugged into the APC was off. Will have to contact support later on this issue. Earlier today (with the 0907 bios) i managed to only successfully complete Aquamark3 (222,759) and 3DMark 2006 (16,630) with cpu settings of 9 x 441 = 3.969 GHz. I know that the P45 intels have more L2$, and are cooler, but figured if i could squeeze another 200MHz than a Q9450 (they will prolly equal in performance). I really wanted to get the new Asus Rampage Formula DDR2 (X48 chipset) w/the Q9450 which has an 8.0 multiplyer; however, with that dam Q6600 doing so good how can i? The Q9550 has an 8.5 multiplyer which would prolly get me a similar GHz comparison between it and my Q6600(with the Q9550 being more efficient and slightly more powerful) netting perhaps 200 more MHz than my Q6600. So my question is this, is 200 MHz worth the cost of the asus rampage formula X48 mobo ($319.95 Canadian) + the Q9550 ($500 Canadian, roughly)? I would have absolutely loved to jump on a proc/and/or mobo that gave me another 500 MHz, but just 200? (i dunno). I believe to have a basic understanding of this stuff but if anyone more experienced than i can give me some advice, it would be much appreciated, michael

I'm just curious ...
The Q9300 (which i own) is mentioned in the article, but not benchmarked.
This should be most interesting compare.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm just curious ...
The Q9300 (which i own) is mentioned in the article, but not benchmarked.
This should be most interesting compare.

I simply just don't have one of those kicking around (nor the Q9450 anymore), which is why it wasn't compared.

[Kougar]

Hey Michael, I actually missed that you'd replied here!

Not sure if your question was still relevant, but honestly 200MHz is not really worth that sort of investment compared to what you already have. And more than likely it is the CPU, not the motherboard holding you back, so even a $300+ mainboard isn't going to help very much. After a certain point (I feel the sweet spot is $160-200) the motherboard is likely going to easily be capable of pushing the CPU to it's max... it just depends on the CPU which is random luck of the draw. Best you could do is hedge your bets and buy a higher binned (more expensive) CPU, as usually the higher the bin grade the better quality chip. It's still no guarantee though. I've seen plenty of cheap 45nm chips that can't get anywhere close to 4Ghz.

Will stick with the Q6600 which u did not mention
Paid $399 for a Dell Inspiron 530 with vista, took vista off and running xp pro
Dell does not sell the 9300 and above on its $399 systems, maybe later on?

[Rob Williams]

I am not sure what your question is, exactly. I can't see it being a problem to just purchase another CPU and throw it in the Dell, but it might void the warranty. You'd have to read into it.