Intel core 2 quad year of manufacture. Quad-Core - what is it? Processor type Quad-Core. Professional test group
Kentsfield processors: Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Core 2 Quad Q6600
The first dual-core processors with the Core microarchitecture were introduced by Intel in mid-summer. It would seem that very little time has passed since that moment by the standards of the IT industry. But Intel is already ready for the next step - the release of processors with a quad-core design based on the same Core microarchitecture!Intel managed to achieve such a rapid implementation of Core in quad-core processors simple method, which was used back in the days of Presler processors. The fact is that Kentsfield is actually a combination of two Conroe crystals (Core 2 Duo), made in a single processor package (just like Presler was made from two Cedar Mill crystals). In other words, the new quad-core Intel processor can be characterized as a system of two dual-core processors with Core microarchitecture.
It should be noted that this approach from Intel is not without meaning and has a lot of advantages. For example, it allows you to achieve significant savings on the work of engineers and technologists, which ultimately resulted in the early appearance of quad-core architecture on the market. In addition, Intel in one fell swoop solved possible production problems accompanying the start of production of new semiconductor cores. Obviously, when manufacturing two Conroe semiconductor crystals, the yield of suitable products will in any case be higher than if Intel began to produce crystals with approximately twice the area and number of transistors.
To the above we need to add two more facts. Firstly, using two cores instead of one allows you to get about a 12% gain in the total core area. And, secondly, Intel has received enormous scope for choosing the most suitable crystals for their use in the basis of quad-core processors. Thus, Kentsfield is expected to use crystals with lower heat release, which will allow the thermal and electrical characteristics of the new product to fit into a fairly attractive framework.
Thus, Kentsfield can be considered as another processor with Core microarchitecture, already well known to us from Core 2 Duo processors. It has all the same advantages as processors codenamed Conroe, with one exception. The second-level cache memory of the quad-core new product, due to its arrangement of two physical semiconductor crystals, consists of two 4-MB parts, each of which is shared (thanks to Intel Advanced Smart Cache technology) only for the corresponding pair of cores. That is, the exchange and sharing of data between cores located in physically different crystals is carried out the old fashioned way - through the system bus and RAM.
Initially, starting today and until the end of this year, Intel will supply a single modification of Kentsfield, called the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. The cost of this processor will be $999, that is, it will be a quad-core competitor to the dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor.
In general, the specifications of this new product are as follows:
Compared to the top processor in the line of dual-core processors with the Core microarchitecture, the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 has a 266 MHz lower frequency and 75% higher typical thermal dissipation. However, both processors cost exactly the same, leaving end users with a difficult choice between two completely disparate offerings.
The CPU-Z diagnostic utility provides the following information about the Core 2 Extreme QX6700.
As you can see, for use in the composition quad-core processors Intel has released a new revision of the B3 kernel: the latest revision of the Core 2 Duo kernel is called B2. Otherwise, the information given in the screenshot is quite expected.
Along with the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor, our laboratory also received a slower, non-extreme Kentsfield model, the Core 2 Quad Q6600. This processor has not yet been announced; its release is expected at the very beginning of next year.
The differences between the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 are a lower clock speed and a lower cost, which, according to preliminary data, will be about $850.
General characteristics of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 are presented in the table:
And here is the data reported by the CPU-Z utility:
I would like to note that the “non-extreme” Kentsfield can, among other things, boast slightly lower typical heat dissipation than the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Therefore, for those users who remember well the problems associated with the operation of processors with NetBurst microarchitecture, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 may turn out to be a more attractive model.
How we tested
There is not much point in continuing the story about the properties of new processors from a theoretical point of view. The properties of the Core microarchitecture were repeatedly reviewed by us earlier, in materials devoted to the “halves” of Kentsfield, and we covered the features of quad-core CPUs in as much detail as possible following the autumn IDF session. Therefore, let's move on to something more interesting - practical tests.When testing quad-core Core processors 2 Extreme QX6700 and Core 2 Quad Q6600, we decided not only to examine the performance of these CPUs in applications that support multithreading. Since multi-core processors make it possible to efficiently run several resource-intensive applications simultaneously, we decided to pay special attention to tests in precisely this situation. But first things first. First, let's get acquainted with the equipment that was used as part of our test systems:
Processors:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 (Socket AM2, 2.8GHz, 2x1024KB L2);
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (LGA775, 2.93GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 4MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (LGA775, 2.66GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (LGA775, 2.66GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 4MB L2);
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (LGA775, 2.4GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 2x4MB L2).
Motherboards:
ASUS P5B Deluxe (LGA775, Intel P965 Express);
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (Socket AM2, NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI).
Memory:
2048MB DDR2-800 SDRAM (Mushkin XP2-6400PRO, 2 x 1024 MB, DDR2-800, 4-4-4-12).
Graphics card: PowerColor X1900 XTX 512MB;
Disk subsystem: Western Digital WD1500AHFD.
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP SP2 with DirectX 9.0c.
Testing was performed with the BIOS Setup settings of the motherboards set to maximum performance.
Performance
SYSMark 2004 SE: Overall Performance
The very first test we conducted makes it possible to draw a completely unambiguous conclusion about quad-core processors. Using a CPU with such a number of cores really allows you to gain performance benefits compared to the speed of modern dual-core processors. Moreover, first of all, this gain is manifested in the tasks of processing and creating digital content. This is not surprising. Most applications of this kind are optimized from a multithreading point of view, which results in the 8% superiority of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 over the Core 2 Extreme X6800, even though clock frequency dual-core CPU is 10% higher.
As for performance in typical office applications, here for Kentsfield not everything is as rosy as in the previous test. The nature of the workload during office work is rarely multi-threaded in nature; therefore, an increase in the number of cores at the expense of the clock frequency cannot be considered in this case good method increasing speed. By the way, I would like to remind you that when moving from single-core to dual-core processors, the Office Productivity index in SYSMark 2004 SE still increased. That is, based on these data, we can say that using a CPU with more than two cores in office applications makes no sense.
Synthetic tests: PCMark05, 3Dmark06
Support for the popular PCMark05 benchmarks for multi-threading is not only about running two computing processes simultaneously. Among the subtests included in this package are two that create four threads simultaneously. Thanks to this, the indices of both Kentsfields in this benchmark are higher than the results of all dual-core CPUs.
The victory of quad-core new products in 3DMark06 is explained by the results of the processor test, which also affects the final index. The processor benchmark, the results of which are shown in the second graph, uses a multi-core architecture to calculate physics and AI for a large number of objects interacting with each other and with each other at the same time. Obviously, a task of this kind can be perfectly parallelized, as illustrated by the numbers obtained in the test.
3D games
Relatively old games, such as Far Cry and Half Life 2, which do not have multi-threading support even in their infancy, naturally do not benefit from the presence of four cores in the processor. Quake4 is known to support dual-core processors, but its performance on Kentsfield systems is not impressive. Obviously, the advertised support for multithreading in Quake4 is aimed exclusively at dual-core processors; this game operates with only two computational threads. But in F.E.A.R., where multi-threading support is also implemented, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 still manages to slightly outperform the Core 2 Extreme X6800. However, the results obtained in F.E.A.R. can hardly be called a grand success. It is expected that full use of the capabilities of quad-core processors in games for calculating the physics of the environment and artificial intelligence will be implemented only in the next generation engines, the first games based on which will begin to appear on the market over the next year.
Audio and video encoding
Support for multithreading in audio and video codecs appeared relatively long ago. However, as can be seen from the results given below, not all codecs are capable of loading four processor cores with work. Many of them create only two computational threads and do not reveal the advantages of Kentsfield. However, there are also counter examples.
Some codecs perfectly recognize the presence of four processor cores in the system and demonstrate excellent performance on platforms equipped with Kentsfield. The relative superiority of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 over the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is 20-35% in Xvid and TMPCEnc.
But, as it turns out, not all codecs are able to effectively use four processor cores simultaneously. Many of them are able to get a performance boost solely by switching to dual-core processors, but Kentsfield is useless for such applications.
In other words, even those applications that we used to demonstrate the advantages of dual-core architectures cannot always be used for the same purposes when moving on to studying the properties of quad-core processors.
Image editing and video editing
As mentioned above, the main tasks that benefit from installing processors like Kentsfield in a system are tasks for creating and editing digital content.
For example, in Adobe Photoshop CS2, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 outperforms the dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 with a higher frequency of 266 MHz by approximately 18%.
Applications for non-linear video editing show even more significant benefits when using quad-core processors. Its value (compared to Conroe) reaches more than 60%.
3D rendering and professional OpenGL
To test performance in professional applications, we used the most new version 3ds max 9.
Final rendering performance scales with the number of processor cores is amazing. Kentsfield based systems can be an excellent choice for 3D designers. Rendering speed increases by more than 30% when moving from Core 2 Extreme X6800 to Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same words about performance when working in projection windows, where the number of processor cores does not affect performance, and the main factor affecting performance continues to be the clock frequency.
Even greater efficiency of Kentsfield can be seen in Cinebench, which shows the speed of the systems during the final rendering in another package, Cinema 4D. Here, the speed superiority of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 over the Core 2 Extreme X6800 is over 50%.
Other applications
The latest versions of the popular WinRAR archiver support multithreading. Kentsfield comes in handy in this case; using this quad-core processor allows you to get a very good performance gain.
The MATLAB mathematical package does not benefit from the presence of four processor cores in the system; here the best results are shown by processors with the Conroe core. However, I would like to note that in tasks that do not use parallel data processing capabilities, Kentsfield processors are not so far behind Conroe. This is explained by the fact that the difference in the frequencies of dual-core and quad-core CPUs from Intel is not so great: the older Kentsfield is inferior in frequency to the older Conroe by only one multiplier step, that is, 266 MHz.
We also decided to include a chess benchmark based on the use of the popular Fritz algorithm to measure processor speed. Enumeration of options for analyzing a chess position turned out to be a perfectly parallelizable process, capable of demonstrating the advantages of quad-core processors in the best possible way. Indeed, at the same clock speed, Kentsfield's superiority over Conroe is 94%, which is close to the theoretical maximum.
Multitasking tests
For this section, we ran several tests aimed at measuring system performance in situations where multiple applications are running simultaneously. The essence of this testing was that we simultaneously launched several resource-intensive tasks in different applications and measured the time required for the systems to complete all the work.
In this test, an image was processed in parallel in Adobe Photoshop and at the same time a folder with files was compressed using the WinRAR archiver. It must be said that the data obtained are not at all surprising. Multi-core processors handle multitasking workloads without any problems, outperforming dual-core Conroes by more than 30%.
Here, video processing was simultaneously performed in Adobe Premiere Pro and an mp3 file was encoded using Apple iTunes. Apparently, the load on the system's computing capabilities in this case is somewhat greater than in the previous test. At least the advantage of Kentsfield over Conroe (at the same clock speed) in this case reaches an impressive 93%.
In the third, most sophisticated test, we loaded the platforms with simultaneous solution of three tasks at once: image processing in Adobe Photoshop, final rendering in 3ds max, and encoding a video clip into MPEG4 format. And in this test, processors with four cores again showed their advantages, significantly outperforming dual-core Conroe. Thus, we can say with confidence that the use of multi-core processors makes it possible to significantly increase the performance of systems that perform several tasks simultaneously.
In addition to testing the speed of platforms with dual-core and quad-core processors running multiple parallel tasks, we set out to find out how background processes would affect the speed of a resource-intensive application running in the foreground. To do this, we measured the number of fps in popular game Quake 4, running several copies of the WinRAR archiver in the background.
At first glance, the results are discouraging. Indeed, it would seem that a processor with more cores should provide better performance regardless of the number of applications running in the background. But in practice this turns out to be completely wrong. If the system with Kentsfield shows better results with a small number of background processes, then increasing their number does not develop this trend. With six or more applications running in the background, the speed of the game running in the "foreground" operating system falls faster on a system with a quad-core processor.
To understand the reasons for this strange effect, you first need to understand that the decrease in game speed from archivers running in the background is not primarily due to the fact that background processes “eat up” CPU resources. OR Task Manager Windows systems distributes processes very well, and all background threads are sent to kernels free from main work. However, in addition to the resources of the CPU itself, background tasks also require access to other platform subsystems, for example, the front bus and memory bus. This is obviously what ruins Kentsfield's performance. Since this processor consists of two different semiconductor chips, data transfer between them is carried out through the front bus and system memory. And WinRAR is just a multi-threaded application that uses several cores simultaneously. As a result, running this utility in the background leads to the fact that some part of the memory bus and the front bus is spent on data exchange between threads of one copy of the program. Therefore, when several copies of this program are executed on Kentsfield, the lack of bus bandwidth begins to be felt earlier than on Conroe, where data exchange between cores is performed through a common L2 cache.
However, these results should not be perceived as a tragedy. With this very artificial test we only show the shortcoming of the Kentsfield architecture. In real practical work, observing this effect will be very problematic, since background processes are usually not resource-intensive. And “heavy” applications, even if they run in the background, are by no means in large quantities.
Power consumption testing
The Core microarchitecture has already demonstrated remarkable cost-effectiveness and performance-per-watt efficiency. After all, Conroe processors tested us earlier, turned out to be not only the fastest CPUs for desktop computers to date, they also showed record low energy consumption. For example, the typical heat dissipation declared by Intel for the dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 is 75 W, and the typical heat dissipation for the Core 2 Duo E6700 is only 65 W. The new quad-core processors use two Conroe cores, and accordingly, their typical heat dissipation has doubled. Thus, the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700, whose frequency is equivalent to that of the Core 2 Duo E6700, has a typical heat dissipation of 130 W. Thus, the heat dissipation of this processor (from a theoretical point of view) reached the heat dissipation of older Pentium D processors based on the Presler core. This is enough alarming symptom for those of our readers who remember with horror what kind of cooling systems had to be built to remove heat from processors with NetBurst microarchitecture. However, let's look in practice - is everything really as scary as it seems at first glance. To do this, we will carry out practical measurements of the energy consumption of processors, which, according to the law of conservation of energy, is equal to heat dissipation.As always in our tests, the processor load when measuring the maximum level of power consumption was performed by a specialized S&M utility, which can be downloaded here. As for the measurement technique, it, as usual, consisted of determining the current passing through the processor power circuit. That is, the figures given below do not take into account the efficiency of the CPU power converter installed on the motherboard.
First of all, we measured the power consumption of the processors at rest. Energy saving technologies Cool"n"Quiet, Intel Enhanced SpeedStep and Enhanced Halt State were disabled in this test.
At rest, no frightening signs are visible. The Core 2 Quad X6600 consumes almost the same amount as the dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800, based on the Conroe core. The power consumption of the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700, although 8 W higher, is still inferior to the power consumption of the dual-core Athlon 64 FX-62 processor, measured under similar conditions.
Let's now see what results can be observed with 100% CPU load.
As we can see, in practice, the power consumption of Kentsfield exceeds the power consumption of Conroe, operating at the same clock frequency, by 75%, which is not far from theoretical values. However, despite this, the new quad-core Intel processors turn out to be more economical than the dual-core Athlon 64 FX-62 and than the older dual-core processors of the Presler family of the latest revisions.
In other words, you shouldn’t be afraid of the high heat dissipation of Kentsfield processors. Drawing analogies with CPUs previously tested in our laboratory, the heat dissipation of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 can be compared with the heat dissipation of the Athlon 64 X2 5000+, and the heat dissipation of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 with the heat dissipation of the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (in the non-Energy Efficient version).
Overclocking
In conclusion, let's look at the frequency potential of Kentsfield processors.Overclocking of these processors is performed without any special features. Everything is absolutely similar to Conroe overclocking. The Core 2 Extreme QX6700, as a processor aimed at consumer enthusiasts, has an unfixed multiplier and is somewhat easier to overclock than other members of the family. At the very least, almost any motherboard is suitable for raising the resulting CPU frequency above the standard value. The same cannot be said about the yet unannounced Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor, which has a fixed multiplier of 9x. Accordingly, to overclock this quad-core product, you will need to get a motherboard that can maintain stability with a significant increase in FSB frequency.
When testing for overclocking, we did not resort to using any special cooling methods. All experiments were performed with the popular Zalman CNPS9500 LED air cooler. The well-proven ASUS P5B Deluxe motherboard, based on the Intel P965 Express chipset, was used as a platform for overclocking. The processor supply voltage during overclocking increased to 1.5 V for both processors. Let us remember that the nominal voltage of our Core 2 Extreme QX6700 was 1.3 V, and the Core 2 Quad Q6600 was 1.2 V. When overclocking, we operated exclusively with the bus frequency, without changing the processor multipliers, even for the Core 2 Extreme QX6700.
The results obtained during overclocking turned out to be as follows. The maximum frequency at which the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 remained capable of stable operation was 3.5 GHz.
Thus, the eldest from Kentsfield demonstrated a very impressive frequency potential during overclocking, exceeding its standard frequency by 30%.
As for the second test CPU, Core 2 Quad Q6600, this processor was overclocked to a slightly lower final frequency, 3.42 GHz.
However, in relative terms this overclocking also looks good, since the CPU clock frequency has increased by 43% relative to the nominal value.
Thus, Kentsfield processors can become very attractive for overclockers. Of course, CPUs of the Conroe family can be overclocked to slightly higher frequencies, for obvious reasons, but Kentsfield is not so much inferior to them: the processors of different ratings we tested were able to operate stably at a frequency of about 3.5 GHz without loss of stability and the use of any or special means for heat removal.
conclusions
To summarize, we are forced to state that it will be quite difficult to characterize the results obtained in a nutshell. The fact is that Kentsfield processors were obviously somewhat ahead of their time. At the moment, there are not so many applications that can effectively use their capabilities 100%, loading all the cores with work. In fact, these are only software products for 3D rendering, video processing and some codecs. It is in these applications that the multi-core architecture of the new CPU can provide an effect adequate to its theoretical potential. Absence at the moment large quantity optimized programs means that Kentsfield processors cannot yet claim to be leaders in terms of performance per watt ratio. From this point of view, dual-core CPUs of the Conroe family continue to be leaders.However, despite the above, we still would not consider the announcement of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 a failure. First of all, because Intel was not afraid to act as a driving force in promoting the concept of multithreading to the market. Thanks to Intel developers software received a completely transparent hint that the time has come to rethink the algorithms. The coming year 2007 should be a landmark year in this regard: we expect the emergence of a significant number of programs capable of obtaining significant performance gains in systems based on multi-core CPUs.
In addition, a smart pricing policy makes the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 an attractive offer today. Its clock speed is only 10% lower than the frequency of Conroe's older dual-core processor, Core 2 Extreme X6800. That is, in those applications that are not optimized for multithreading, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 will lose out to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 quite a bit. At the same time, their cost is equivalent, which allows consumers choosing a CPU from the standpoint of performance and price to consider the released Kentsfield as a completely acceptable option. Moreover, even if used with non-optimized programs, it can provide significant benefits when working with several tasks simultaneously. In optimized applications, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 demonstrates unattainable performance.
Thus, even if today you do not see the clear advantages of quad-core processors and Kentsfield in particular, in the future the situation will undoubtedly change. The prospects of the reviewed new product from Intel cannot be denied.
The Intel processor was announced back in the fall of 2006, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 with a clock frequency of 2667 MHz and an unlocked multiplier - it was a truly extremely powerful processor at that time with an equally extreme price. A little later, in 2007, updated models appeared: Core 2 Quad Q6700 with a frequency of 2667 MHz and Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2933 MHz with a bus of 1066 MHz; later in the same 2007 they added the QX6850 with a frequency of 3000 MHz and with a fairly high bus of 1333 MHz - this was the most powerful and latest of the Kentsfield design processors. Already in March 2009, Kentsfield chips stopped coming off the assembly line. At the beginning of 2008, Intel significantly increased the range of quad-core processors for LGA775 and processors went on sale, models of which began with nine Q9400, Q9450 and Q9550 based on the updated design of Yorkfield cores, which had already begun to be produced using a 45-nm process technology, of the important improvements this is the new SSE4.1 instruction set, increase in L2 cache from 8 MB to 12 MB and bus frequency of 1333 MHz up to 1600 MHz for Core 2 Extreme, also some Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme models were produced for the LGA771 socket which could be seen in branded expensive Dell Alienware and Acer Predator gaming computers. In 2009, Intel continued to fill the lineup Core 2 Quad processors with the Yorkfield design, even despite the release at the end of 2008 of completely new processors that were significantly different from the Yorkfield core design under the new Core i7 brand with a new Bloomfield core design and a new LGA 1366 socket. Core 2 Quad processors with the Yorkfield core design were produced until February 7, 2011.
| Core 2 Quad | |
|---|---|
| CPU | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 |
|
| Production | from January 2007 to February 2011 |
| Manufacturer | |
| CPU frequency | 2.33-3.20 GHz |
| FSB frequency | 1066-1600 MHz |
| Production technology | 65-45 nm |
| Instruction Sets | x86, EM64T, MMX, NX Bit, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1 |
| Microarchitecture | Intel Core, Penryn |
| Connector | |
| Cores | |
Marking
Processors of the Intel Core 2 Quad family are the latest LGA775 solutions.
Kentsfield
Kentsfield- the core design that formed the basis of quad-core processors was announced on November 2, 2006. The announcement came just a couple of months after the announcement of the Conroe design, due to the fact that the development of these designs was ongoing simultaneously. The main model based on the Kentsfield design is the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, it went on sale on January 8, 2007, priced at $851. This was the only model until July 22, 2007, when the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 went on sale for $530 and $999, respectively. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 was based on the Kentsfield XE design. Subsequently, the price of the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 was reduced to $266, making the processor generally available.
Kentsfield XE- modernized Kentsfield core design, which has minor differences from the original, namely more efficient stability at high frequencies and a free multiplier. This design was used in the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, QX6800 and QX6850 processors.
The Kentsfield core design has an area of 286 mm² and 582 million transistors. The L1 cache is 32 KB for instructions and 32 KB for data per core. The volume of the total second level cache is 8 MB. To produce the design, the standards of the 65-nm semiconductor manufacturing process are used. Energy consumption is 95-105 for Kentsfield and 130 W for Kentsfield XE. The maximum supply voltage is 1.350 V. The last stepping is G0.
Yorkfield
Yorkfield- a similar Kentsfield core design, consisting of two chips, but this uses 45 nm Wolfdale chips, which are based on the new Intel Penryn architecture, however they do not bring significant architectural changes compared to the 65 nm Conroe chips, based on the Intel Core architecture. Yorkfield chips were originally scheduled to go on sale in January 2008, but the date had to be pushed back to March due to a design flaw. The first models were the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 and Q9450, which had frequencies of 2500 and 2667 MHz and were sold at prices of $266 and $316, respectively. In April, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 model with a frequency of 2833 MHz appeared, which cost $530.
The Yorkfield core design has an area of 214 mm² and 820 million transistors, using 45 nm process technology to produce the design. The L1 cache is 32 KB for instructions and 32 KB for data per core. The volume of the total second level cache is 12 MB. The maximum supply voltage is 1,200 V. Power consumption is 65-95 W for Yorkfield and Yorkfield 6M and 130 W for Yorkfield XE. The last stepping is R0.
Yorkfield XE- the design that formed the basis of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650, QX9770, QX9775 processors. Before everyone else - on November 11, 2007, that is, even earlier than the main Yorkfield design was released - the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 went on sale. This design is compatible with LGA771 server socket. Also, a design feature can be called a free multiplication factor, which is a natural characteristic of the Intel Core 2 Extreme line.
Yorkfield-6M- core design, which is based on a pair of Wolfdale-3M chips, used in cheap Intel Core 2 Duo E7xxx models. The Yorkfield-6M design was used in the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9xxx, which has 6 MB of L2 cache, and Q8xxx, which has 4 MB of L2 cache. The number of transistors in this design was reduced to 548 million, and the area was reduced to 162 mm².
Technologies
Technologies supported by Intel Core 2 Quad processors:
- Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) (except Q8200, Q8200s, Q8300)
- Intel Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.1 (SSE 4.1) (45nm Yorkfield only)
- Intel Enhanced Virus Protection or Execute Disable Bit (EVP)
- Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology
- Enhanced Halt State (C1E)
- Intel Thermal Monitor 2
| Model | Frequency, MHz | Factor | Frequency |
|---|
Four cores: Intel Core 2 Quad
There is something exciting about the combination of multiple processing cores from Intel, namely a fast architecture that can deliver high performance. The new Core 2 Quad processors should defeat anything and everything in the x86 world and extend Intel's leadership. At least until the quad-core comes out AMD Deerhound. Our testing today will compare the performance of the upcoming Core 2 Quad processors with Core 2 Duo/Extreme, Pentium Extreme Edition and AMD Athlon 64 FX.
Will the productivity race ever end? Even experts have different opinions here. Some believe that multiple cores are absolutely necessary today. And others believe that a five-year-old computer is sufficient for their tasks. And although four-core Core 2 Quad processors will not be released until October, Tom's Hardware Guide laboratory had the opportunity to test their performance today. By the way, we emphasize that we did not receive processor samples from Intel.
Intel followed the beaten path by integrating two Core 2 Duo chips into a single package. This raises several questions. How much faster are four cores on an already slow dual-core system? How will the heat dissipation and power consumption of a PC with four cores change? What applications benefit from more cores? Does the existing platform create bottlenecks? And finally, what is the maximum clock speed we can get?
What about eight processors in one package?
What are the characteristics of modern processors? It is clear that for a long time now, not only in terms of productivity. Dual-core Pentium D 805 today it is quite sufficient for many applications, especially since after overclocking it can operate at frequencies of up to 4.1 GHz. In modern conditions, power consumption and heat dissipation are becoming increasingly important, and Intel with the Core 2 Quad processor does not intend to go beyond the thermal package of 130 W. By the way, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 almost reached this value, and the Core 2 Quad processor has every chance of doing the same. But then we get four cores in one package.
Four cores are located not on one chip, but on two: two dual-core Core 2 chips are located side by side in a single package. And the number of transistors doubles to an impressive 582 million.
You can also calculate the area. It is not possible to fit more than two Core 2 Duo (Conroe) cores into an LGA 775 package, since there simply isn’t enough space. Each dual-core Core 2 die occupies an area of 143 mm², so four dies will require an area of at least 572 mm 2 (maximum 625 mm 2 available). But the elongated shape of the crystal (10.48 x 13.63 mm) does not allow placing the four in one package. Therefore, it can clearly be said that for the 65-nm process technology, Intel has reached the limit in the number of dual crystals and cores. Of course, you can cut the cache to 2 MB and fit four crystals into one package, but the heat dissipation will exceed 200 W, which is not justified. Therefore, we are confident that the next step will be four processors on a single chip with a shared L2 cache.
But this is just the beginning. The transition to a 45-nm process technology is planned for mid-2007, and in 2009, thanks to submicron ultraviolet lithography (EUV), Intel plans to move to 32 nanometers. And by then, if nothing changes, the company will have a two-year technology lead over most other chip makers.
Quad-core processor in detail
Intel Core 2 Quad at 2.66 GHz with a total L2 cache of 8 MB. There are four cores inside a single package.
According to rumors, Intel plans to release the fastest quad-core Core processor in the form of Core 2 Extreme.
On the reverse side there are noticeable differences. Click on the picture to enlarge.
 |
Physical layout of two CPU chips with two cores on each. Click on the picture to enlarge.
Platforms: Intel 965 and 975X
Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad processors require a modern motherboard. It must use a 965 or 975X chipset, or a chipset from the nVidia nForce 500 line for Intel processors. Today, motherboard manufacturers are rushing to make changes to the BIOS that would allow support for four cores. Updated BIOS versions for some models can already be downloaded from manufacturers' websites. In our testing, we used the Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 motherboard, which uses the 965 chipset, which can be purchased for around $250. The board supports FSB frequencies up to 333 MHz (FSB1333), which gives us hope for its long life. Compared to the Asus P5B Deluxe, this model turned out to be slightly faster in terms of memory bandwidth, which, however, does not greatly affect performance in real conditions. Intel offers the P965LTCK board, but it has not yet arrived in stores.
 |
Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 is ready for Core 2 Quad. Most other P965 chipset motherboards do too. But we still recommend checking this on the manufacturer’s website or in the documentation. Click on the picture to enlarge.
Power consumption: Core 2 Quad vs Duo and Pentium EE
If you look at Core 2 Duo processor tests, then we can assume a twofold increase in the power consumption of Core 2 Quad. Indeed, if the thermal package for Core 2 Duo is 65 W at a supply voltage of 1.3 V, then two similar crystals will consume up to 130 W of energy. As the test results showed, the test platform consumes 167 W in idle mode (with an ATi Radeon X300 accelerator and hard drive at 7200 rpm). At full load, power consumption increases to 260 W. An increase of 100 W! By comparison, the Core 2 Extreme X6800 system consumes 142 Watts at idle and 165 Watts at full load.
As you can see, a Core 2 Quad system consumes the same amount of power when idle as a Core 2 Extreme system under full load. And if we load the Core 2 Quad, we get almost the same level as the old Pentium EE 965. However, the system still consumes 15 W less than the dual-core Pentium EE 840, and this with increased performance due to four cores! In any case, the actual heat dissipation turns out to be significantly lower than the thermal package (TDP, Thermal Design Power) of 130 W.
System power consumption without load: 167 W.
Power consumption at full load: 260 W.
However, the most power-hungry processor is still the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 - 275 W for the system at full load.
System bus: FSB1066 vs FSB1333
Intel has decided to increase the FSB clock frequency of the Core 2 Quad processor to 333 MHz versus 266 MHz for the Core 2 Duo. As our tests have shown, FSB1333 (physical 333 MHz) does not provide any advantages. At least not with a 2.66 GHz processor. But when the processor frequency increases to 3.0 GHz and above, as well as when the memory frequency increases above the DDR2-1000 mark (physical 500 MHz), the FSB1333 shows what it is capable of.
Increasing the FSB frequency to 333 MHz is a completely logical step, since Core 2 Conroe crystals use FSB to communicate with each other and to write/read to L2 caches. This is especially important when several applications are running simultaneously (multitasking). Such FSB speeds are not a problem for modern 90nm chipsets.
One thing to keep in mind, especially from a Pentium 4 perspective, is that the Core 2 micro-architecture uses a number of features to reduce load on the memory bus, so higher FSB or memory frequencies do not result in performance scaling.
Temperatures: noticeably hotter than Core 2 Duo/Extreme
The maximum temperature of the Core 2 Quad at full load was 66°C.
During tests, the peak core temperature was 66°C using the stock Intel cooler. The maximum temperature for Core 2 Extreme was 43°C.
The maximum temperature of the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 at full load is 79°C.
Important note: SpeedStep technology did not work properly on our test unit. The core voltage dropped to 1.050 V after enabling SpeedStep, but after a few seconds the computer crashed.
Application problems
Two problems arose during testing. The first concerned the game Call of Duty 2 (version 1.03), which simply did not start, crashing with an error.
Call of Duty II did not work on the Core 2 Quad system.
The second problem concerns Microsoft WMA Encoder: encoding turned out to be very slow. Both problems can be solved by binding cores to threads. This situation is not unique to Intel systems; it will likely also occur on AMD systems with more than two processors.
The heterogeneity of the distribution of threads across processors is to blame here.
The problems are not new. We encountered them before when we enabled Hyper-Threading technology on the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965, which made it possible to get four virtual processors.
Core 2 Quad: record performance!
Intel plans to release the Core 2 Quad with a maximum clock speed of 2.66 GHz in mid-October. According to rumors, Intel will call the new model based on Kentsfield cores Core 2 Extreme.
Core 2 Duo today comes with a minimum clock speed of 2.13 GHz. As previous experience shows, Intel reduces the CPU clock speed when doubling the number of crystals. Our sample processor can be overclocked to 3.33 GHz without raising the voltage. The factory frequency was 2.66 GHz, and the bus frequency was 333 MHz.
Our Core 2 Quad test sample worked smoothly at 3.33 GHz without raising the voltage!
The maximum frequency is on the verge of stability: 3.4 GHz.
5016 points for the CPU test in 3DMark05: a new record!
And another record: 10,841 points in PCMark 2005.
And Sandra just went crazy.
Core 2 Quad: Same as Core 2 Duo/Extreme, all features supported.
Test configuration
We took two hard drives Western Digital WD1500 Raptor-X at 10,000 rpm. One drive was used for reading and the other for major operations records.
The test systems used a pair of WD1500ADFD hard drives (WD Raptor, 10,000 rpm).
All systems were equipped with 2 GB of memory.
DDR2 memory CM2X-1024-6400C3 from Corsair (CL4-4-4-8).
Since some tests require a sound card, we used Terratec Aureon Space 7.1.
All processors were tested paired with the GV-RX19X512VB-HRH (ATi X1900XTX) card from Gigabyte. We inserted the ATi Radeon X300 card only in power consumption tests.
| System hardware | |
| AMD AM2 platform | Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe, Rev.1.03G, nVidia nForce5, BIOS: 0504 (06/14/2006) |
| Intel S775 platform | Asus P5W DH Deluxe, Rev. 1.02G, Intel 975X (C0), Bios: 0065 (06/16/2006) |
| Memory I (Intel) | 2x 1024 MB DDR2-800 (CL 4.0-4-4-8), Corsiar CM2X1024-6400C4 XMS6404v1.1 |
| Memory II (AMD) | 2x 1024 MB DDR2-800 (CL 4.0-4-4-8 1T), Corsiar CM2X1024-6400C3 XMS6403v1.1 |
| Hard disk I (read) | |
| Hard disk II (recording) | 1x 170 GB 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATAII, Western Digital WD1500ADFD |
| DVD-ROM | Gigabyte 16X IDE DVD-ROM |
| Video card | Gigabyte GV-RX19X512VB-RH, ATi X19800XTX 512 MB |
| Sound card | Terratec Aureon 7.1 Space |
| power unit | |
| System software and drivers | |
| OS | Windows XP Professional 5.10.2600, Service Pack 2 |
| DirectX version | 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) |
| AMD platform drivers | nForce Driver 9.34 BETA |
| Intel Platform Drivers | 8.0.1.1002 (06/06/2006) |
| Graphics driver | ATi Catalyst 6.5 (8.252-060503a-032464C-ATI) |
| Old platforms | |
| AMD Socket 939 platform | ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe (Socket 939), Rev. 1.01, nVidia nForce4 SLI X16, BIOS 8060 |
| Intel II platform | Asus P5WD2-E Premium (Socket 775), Rev. 1.01G, Intel 975X, BIOS 0304 |
| Intel III platform | Intel D975XBX (Socket 775), Rev. AA, Intel 975X, BIOS BX97510J.86A.0807.2006.0314.1158 |
| Memory II | Infineon HYS64T64000GU-3.7-A, 2x 512 MB DDR2-667 (333 MHz, CL 4.0-4-4-8) |
| Memory III | GEIL GLX1GB3200DC, 2x 512 MB DDR-400 (200 MHz, CL 2.0-2-2-5, 1T) |
| Hard disk I (read) | |
| Hard disk II (recording) | Western Digital WD160, 160 GB, 7200 rpm, 8 MB cache, SATA150 |
| DVD-ROM | Gigabyte GO-D1600C (16x) |
| Video card | Gigabyte GV-NX78X256V-B (PCI Express), GeForce 7800GTX (430 MHz), 256 MB GDDR3 (600 MHz) |
| Sound card | Terratec Aureon 7.1 Space (PCI) |
| AMD Network | Marvell 88E8053 PCI-Express 1 Gb/s |
| Intel Network | Marvell 88E8001 PCI-Express 1 Gb/s |
| power unit | PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 510, ATX 2.01, 510 W |
| Tests and settings | |
| 3D games | |
| Call of Duty 2 | Version: 1.03 Video Mode: 1024x768 Anti-aliasing: off Shadows: no timedemo demo2 |
| Quake 4 | Version: 1.2 (Dual-Core Patch) Video Mode: 1024x768 Video Quality: default THG Timedemo waste.map timedemo demo8.demo 1 (1 = load textures) |
| Unreal Tournemant 2004 | Version: 3369 UMark: 2.0.0 Bots: 16 / High Performance / 1280 x 1024 Demo: AS-Junkyard |
| Serious Sam 2 | Version: 2.070 Demo: Greendale 1024x768 HDR Rendering: off Renderer: Direct3D Filtering mode: none Antialiasing mode: none |
| Sound | |
| iTunes 6 | Version: 6.0.4.2 Convert wav to aac |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.97 Beta 2 (12-22-2005) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to mp3 160 kbps |
| OGG | Version 1.1.2 (Intel P4 MOD) Version 1.1.2 (Intel AMD MOD) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to ogg Quality: 5 |
| WMA | Version: 9.1 Advanced Audio Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min 128 kbps |
| Video | |
| Pinnacle Studio 10.5 Platinum | Version: 10.5.2.2826 from: 352x288 MPEG-2 41 MB to: 720x576 MPEG-2 95 MB Encoding and Transition Rendering to MPEG-2-File File Type: MPEG-2 Preset: DVD Compatible Audio: no |
| TMPEG 3.0 Express | Version: 3.0.4.24 (no Audio) fist 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (704x576) 16:9 Multithreading by rendering |
| DivX 6.2 | Version: 6.2.2 (4 Logical CPUs) Profile: High Definition Profile 1-pass, 3000 kbit/s Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading no Audio |
| XviD 1.1.0 | Version: 1.1.0 Beta 3 Target quantity: 1.00 |
| Clone DVD 2 | Version: 2.8.9.9 DVD "Terminator II SE" (english version) Transcoding from DVD-9 to DVD-4.7 Audio: DTS Subtilte: no |
| Mainconcept H.264 Encoder | Version: 2.0 MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec 24 sec HDTV 1920x1080 mpeg2 mpeg2 to H.264 |
| Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 Windows Media Encoder 9.1 AP |
Version: 2.0 NTSC MPEG2-HDTV 1920x1080 (24 sec) Import: Mainconcept NTSC HDTV 1080i Export: Adobe Media Encoder Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile Encoding Passes: one Bitrate Mode: Constant Frame: 1290x1080 Frame Rate: 29.97 Maximum Bitrate: 2000 Image Quality: 50.00 Audio: no |
| Windows Media Encoder | Version: 9.00.00.2980 Windows Media Video 9.1 Advanced Profile 720x480 AVI to WMV 320x240 (29.97 fps) 282 kbps streaming |
| Applications | |
| AVG Anti-Virus 7.1 | Version: 7.1.394 (Program) Virus base: 268.8.0/353 (3.85 GB, 14.007 Files, 1.177 Folders) |
| Winrar | Version 3.60 BETA 4 (Dual-Core) (303 MB, 47 Files, 2 Folders) Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 kB |
| Autodesk 3D Studio Max | Version: 8.0 Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig" rendering HTDV 1920x1080 |
| Adobe Photoshop CS 2 | Version: 9.0.1 VT-Runtime Script Rendering from 5 Pictures (66 MB, 7 Filters) |
| Adobe Photoshop CS 2 Image Processor |
Version: 9.0.1 convert 150 Photos from 9 Mpixel to 0.8 Mpixel 100 Images (3488 x 2616) 9 Mpixels (1024x786) 0.8 Mpixel Scripts\Image Processor Quality: 5 Resize to Fit (W:1024 H:768) |
| Adobe Acrobat 7 Professional | Version: 7.0.8 |
| Microsoft Office Word 2003 | Version: 11.6568.6568 SP2 Adobe PDF Maker 950 pages Word file to PDF |
| Microsoft Office Powerpoint 2003 | Version: 11.6564.6568 SP2 Adobe PDF Maker 200 pages Powerpoint file to PDF Enrcyption Level: High (128-bit RC4) Conversion Settings: High Quality Print |
| Multitasking | |
| Multitasking I | Adobe Photoshop CS 2 - Image Processor Winrar |
| Multitasking II | Adobe Acrobat 7 Professionell - PDF-Maker AVG Anti-Virus (3.85 GB, 14,007 Files, 1,177 Folders) |
| Synthetic tests | |
| 3DMark06 | Version: 1.02 1280x1024 - 32 bit Graphics and CPU Default Benchmark |
| PCMark05 Pro | Version: 1.1.0 CPU and Memory Tests Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980 |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2007 | Version 2007.5.10.98 CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark Memory Lateny Test = ns |
Conclusion: Core 2 Quad improves performance even further
The performance of Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme processors was already not small, but Core 2 Quad processors increase it even more. Although not in all applications. At best, you can expect almost doubling of productivity. But again, everything depends on the application. Some software vendors have yet to make optimizations for multi-core processors.
The future is without a doubt HD video. And if you look at the test results of a quad-core processor, it’s impossible to resist the Core 2 Quad. The results of the Main Concept software packages with H.264 and WMV-HD encoding speak for themselves: an increase of up to 80 percent compared to a Core 2 Duo processor at the same clock speed (2.66 GHz). Core 2 Quad at 2.66 GHz and above is perfect for HD video (editing and rendering) at full HD resolution (1920x1080). That's why Demanding users are definitely recommended to upgrade to four cores and even more of them. But eight cores are still a long way off, although developers at AMD and Intel are working tirelessly.
For gamers, on the other hand, a Core 2 Duo/Extreme or the legendary Pentium D 805 will be enough for now. The reason lies in the lack of optimization for four processors. In practice, games use a maximum of two cores, alas.
Overclocking fans will be satisfied. Our test sample was overclocked to 3.33 GHz without increasing the voltage and with a standard cooler.
The maximum power consumption of the system was 260 W, that is, the Core 2 Quad system consumes at the level of a Pentium EE 965. In idle mode, the power consumption of the Core 2 Quad system reached 167 W - approximately the same as the Core 2 Extreme at full load. The reason, most likely, lies in the still “crude” implementation of Intel SpeedStep technology. By Core performance 2 Quad “rips apart” the classic Pentium 4/D processors like Tuzik beats a hot water bottle: we get more than a twofold increase in performance compared to the Pentium EE 965 and at the same time lower power consumption. But you should remember that Core 2 Quad heats up more than Core 2 Duo/Extreme.
Intel plans to release a top-end version of the Core 2 Quad at a price of about $1,000. The buyer will receive a quad-core processor at 2.66 GHz with a total of 8 MB of L2 cache.
Editor's opinion
Working with one of the first examples of a quad-core processor is simply amazing! And no matter how many programs you run in parallel, the system does not lose its responsiveness. And some applications get the job done twice as fast. Personally, I felt transported into the era of future computing. A completely different feeling, different from the extensive increase in clock frequencies over last years, when productivity grew drop by drop per quarter. With the release of Core 2 Duo, Intel was able to deliver 30 percent more performance. And taking into account Core 2 Quad, the increase becomes even higher.
LGA 775, better known to many as "Socket T", which appeared in early 2004, is a dedicated processor socket. (A bus with a set of contacts.) A processor that does not have pin contacts is attached to the bus using a lever fastening and a rigid grip. The developer of this type of bus is Intel Corporation.
The mounting of this format is less efficient than that of AMD, however, it is worth noting that, unlike the AMD connector, it is scalable, which allows users to increase bandwidth by adjusting the PC characteristics to their needs. A positive factor is the absence of a memory controller, which allows the use of older Intel buses with higher-frequency processors, and although the developers planned to refine the socket or completely change the concept, this did not happen for a number of reasons (Many believe that the reason was the further development and improvement of DDR3).
Core 2 Duo
Intel Core 2 Duo E series processors are a line designed for client systems based on the Core architecture (Multi-core microprocessor architecture dating back to 2006) used in desktop and personal PCs. At one time, these processors were the benchmark for price/quality/performance ratio. It is impossible to compare the entire line with anything else, but we can look at the development process in the table, so let’s take several different products, look at their main characteristics, and then move on to processors of a slightly newer generation
| Processor model | Clock frequency | Multiplication factor | System bus frequency (FSB) | Level 2 cache size (L2) |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 | 1.80GHz | 9 | 800 | 2MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 | 2.00GHz | 10 | 800 | 2MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 | 2.20GHz | 11 | 800 | 2MB |
| 2.40GHz | 12 | 800 | 2MB | |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4700 | 2.60GHz | 13 | 800 | 2MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 | 1.86GHz | 7 | 1066 | 2MB |
| 2.13GHz | 8 | 1066 | 2MB | |
| 2.33GHz | 7 | 1333 | 4MB | |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 | 2.40GHz | 9 | 1066 | 2MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 | 2.66GHz | 10 | 1066 | 4MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 | 3.00GHz | 9 | 1333 | 4MB |
| 2.53GHz | 9.5 | 1066 | 3MB | |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 | 2.80GHz | 10.5 | 1066 | 3MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 | 2.93GHz | 11 | 1066 | 3MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 | 3.06GHz | 11.5 | 1066 | 3MB |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 | 2.66GHz | 8 | 1333 | 6MB |
| 2.83GHz | 8.5 | 1333 | 6MB | |
| 3.00GHz | 9 | 1333 | 6MB | |
| 3.16GHz | 9.5 | 1333 | 6MB | |
| 3.33GHz | 10 | 1333 | 6MB |
As we can see from the table, the company made progress year after year, the clock frequency gradually increased, and latest versions and an increase in the second level memory cache from 2 Megabytes to 6 Megabytes, which has a very positive effect on performance.
Core 2 Quad
Intel Core 2 Quad processors date back to 2007 and are more progressive than their Core 2 Duo series counterparts. They are based on the Kentsfield core, and the beginning of the entire line was the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor, which was almost immediately followed by the Core 2 Quad Q6700 with an increased frequency.
The stalemate for Intel was that the 65nm process technology that was suitable for the Core 2 Duo was insufficient for the four-core Core 2 Quad processors, so production stalled until 2008, when the Yorkfield core made by in a 45 nanometer version (By the way, to understand the speed of technology development, 5 nanometer architecture is beginning to be used in our time).
Technical characteristics of processors of the Intel Core 2 Quad family
| Model | Clock frequency, MHz | Factor | FSB frequency, MHz | L2 cache, MB | TDP, W | Core |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45nm technology (Yorkfield core) | ||||||
| Q8200 | 2333 | 7 | 1333 | 4 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q8200s | 2333 | 7 | 1333 | 4 | 65 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q8300 | 2500 | 7,5 | 1333 | 4 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q8400 | 2667 | 8 | 1333 | 4 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9300 | 2500 | 7,5 | 1333 | 6 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9400 | 2667 | 8 | 1333 | 6 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9400s | 2667 | 8 | 1333 | 6 | 65 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9450 | 2667 | 8 | 1333 | 12 | 95 | Yorkfield |
| Q9500 | 2833 | 8,5 | 1333 | 6 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9505 | 2833 | 8,5 | 1333 | 6 | 95 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9505s | 2833 | 8,5 | 1333 | 6 | 65 | Yorkfield-6M |
| Q9550 | 2833 | 8,5 | 1333 | 12 | 95 | Yorkfield |
| Q9550s | 2833 | 8,5 | 1333 | 12 | 65 | Yorkfield |
| Q9650 | 3000 | 9 | 1333 | 12 | 95 | Yorkfield |
| QX9650 | 3000 | 9 | 1333 | 12 | 130 | Yorkfield XE |
| QX9770 | 3200 | 8 | 1600 | 12 | 130 | Yorkfield XE |
| QX9775 | 3200 | 8 | 1600 | 12 | 130 | Yorkfield XE |
| 65nm technology (Kentsfield core) | ||||||
| Q6600 | 2400 | 9 | 1066 | 8 | 105 | Kentsfield |
| Q6700 | 2667 | 10 | 1066 | 8 | 105 | Kentsfield |
| QX6700 | 2667 | 10 | 1066 | 8 | 130 | Kentsfield XE |
| QX6800 | 2933 | 11 | 1066 | 8 | 130 | Kentsfield XE |
| QX6850 | 3000 | 9 | 1333 | 8 | 130 | Kentsfield XE |
Core 2 Quad processors are also designed for client desktop and laptop PCs, but in general the line does not have any changes except a change in core architecture, an increase in clock frequency from 2400 GHz to 3200 GHz and an increase in the second cache to 12 MB. Intel Core 2 Quad ended production in 2011, and along with them, the LGA 775 bus went down into history.
Conclusion
In general, Duo and Quad processors are like two subsections of the same generation, which combines many characteristics, such as the same bus, clock speed and a number of others, but from the names you can already understand that Duo combined two cores, and Quad - four , this characteristic was precisely what threw a white stone in favor of the Quad.
Despite the fact that Intel Quad Core processors were released more than 10 years ago, they still remain very relevant and are at the forefront of many computer problems...
From Masterweb
16.05.2018 01:00Despite the fact that Intel Quad Core processors were released more than 10 years ago, they still remain very relevant and are at the forefront of many computer assemblies. Of course, in 2018, building a PC on such a CPU from scratch would be stupid, but using it as an upgrade to an old system in order to extend its life and give it more power is quite realistic and reasonable. But which processor is better to give preference from the entire line, especially since the price difference between the models is not so great? Well, let's understand this issue.
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
So, the first processor in today's rating is the Q6600. This CPU is perhaps one of the most popular among the entire line. Its cost is very low, and its characteristics allow it not only to be used to create a multimedia or work PC, but also as a gaming PC, albeit an entry-level one, but still.
Description and characteristics
The Intel Quad Core 6600 first went on sale in 2007 and almost immediately received the status of “people's favorite”. Why practically? Because initially sales were not going well. At launch, the processor cost a colossal $500, and only people for whom money was not a problem bought it. After a couple of months, the price was significantly reduced and that’s when the Q6600 truly became a popular processor.
It is intended for motherboards with socket 775. Based on the type of structure, it uses not only a new core at the time of release, but also new technology production 65 nm.
The processor has all proprietary technologies and also supports most of the necessary instructions, for example, SSE, MMX, etc. Of course, compared to today's CPUs, the list of technologies and instructions is not very large, but for that time it was almost the maximum.
The “pebble” operates at a frequency of 2400 MHz, but this is not the limit. The processor supports overclocking functions, so the operating frequency can be raised to 3.4 GHz without any problems, however, there are cases when some overclockers were given the bar at 3.6 GHz or even higher.
Actually, the biggest drawback of the 6600 is its thermal package, which causes the processor to get very hot. And if you also take into account the overclocking capabilities, then there is a risk of completely burning the “stone”. To prevent this, you need to take care of a good and spacious case, as well as a high-quality cooling system in the form of, for example, a tower cooler.
Intel Core Quad Q6600 CPU Specifications:
- Socket – LGA775.
- Number of cores – 4.
- Frequency – 2.4 GHz.
- The core name is Kentsfield.
- Technological process – 65 nm.
- L1 cache – 4x64 kb.
- L2 cache – 8 MB.
- L3 cache - no.
- CPU voltage – 1.1-1.37 V.
- Thermal package – 105 W.
- The maximum temperature is 63 degrees.
As for the processor capabilities, today the Q6600 allows you to comfortably work in most programs, including quite serious ones, for example, Premiere Pro, Vegas, 3Ds Max, etc. The only thing is that the rendering speed and performance in general will be somewhere on the Middle level.
There is also good news for those who like to play. The processor can handle many modern games, such as GTA 5, Overwatch, PUBG, CS:GO, The Witcher 3, Battlefield 1, etc. Of course, you won’t be able to play comfortably and without lags on ultra graphics settings, but on high and medium settings it’s quite possible.
Reviews and price
Reviews of the Q6600 processor show that the CPU does not actually have any serious drawbacks, other than increased heat dissipation and an outdated platform on the 775 socket. Nevertheless, purchasing this “stone” to upgrade an old system will be a justified investment and will extend the life of the computer by at least another 2-3 years.
As for the cost, you can currently buy a processor for 600-800 rubles on the secondary market in excellent condition, or for almost 2,600 rubles, but new in a store.
Model Q8400
The second processor that will be discussed is the Q8400. This model has a more modern architecture than the previous version and has more improved characteristics that provide the user with even greater performance.
Description of the CPU and its characteristics
The Intel Quad Core 8400 went on sale in 2009, when it was no longer possible to surprise anyone with four cores on the component market. The Q8400 did not claim to be the best or the most affordable, no, in fact, it was simply something in between the Q9550 and Q8200.
The characteristics of the new product were balanced, the company promised good performance, at the level of top solutions. The 8400 operates at a frequency of 2660 MHz, plus it is possible to overclock up to 3800 MHz, and with luck, up to 3900. This figure significantly exceeds the 6600 model and the more recent 8200 and 8300. I would also like to note that in overclocking the processor almost catches up with the top-end 9550, which accelerates to just over 4 GHz.
In addition, it uses a more improved 45 nm process technology and a new Yorkfield core. According to these indicators, the 8400 is also better than the 66th model. The entire set of necessary instructions and technologies is also present.
As for heating, Intel has reduced the thermal package, but still a good cooling system will not hurt, especially if overclocking is planned.
Characteristics of CPU Intel Quad Core Q8400:
- Socket – LGA775.
- Number of cores – 4.
- Frequency – 2.66 GHz.
- The core name is Yorkfield.
- Technological process – 45 nm.
- L1 cache – 2x64 KB.
- L2 cache – 2x2048 KB.
- L3 cache - no.
- CPU voltage – 0.85-1.36 V.
- Thermal package – 95 W.
In terms of its capabilities, the Q8400 significantly surpasses the previous model. The processor has better performance, making it much better at handling heavy programs. Games aren't a problem either. The CPU power is enough to play most modern games at high and sometimes maximum settings without any problems.
Reviews and cost
Reviews about the processor show that the Q8400 turned out to be a very successful model, which stands out perfectly from its “brothers”. There is good performance, overclocking potential, speed, and a fair price. The only disadvantages include the “trimmed” second-level cache and increased heat generation during overclocking. Otherwise, this is a great option for your money. By the way, about the cost. You can buy this CPU for 4,600 rubles new, which is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, it is better to look at the secondary market, where the price tag for 8400 is in the region of 900-1000 rubles.
Q9400
Well, the latest processor for today is the Q9400. This option is perfect primarily for those who lack the power and performance of the 8400, but don’t want to buy a computer on a new, more modern platform, or don’t have the money. In this case, the Quad Q9400 is the ideal choice.
Model description and characteristics
This CPU went on sale in 2009, almost at the same time as the 8400. The model was positioned as one of the top versions, but in fact it was itself a “cut down” version of the more top-end Q9450 at that time. The “big brother” was more productive and more expensive, so the Intel Quad Core Q9400 immediately began to gain popularity, not only because of its more affordable price tag, but also due to its almost flagship characteristics.
The processor has 4 cores that operate at a frequency of 2660 MHz. The overclocking potential is present, and it is quite good. “Stone” can be overclocked to 3800 MHz without any special problems, which, in fact, will give an increase of almost 45%, and this is a very good indicator.
As for the supported instructions and technologies, the set is absolutely similar to the previous models and is in no way inferior to the older ones in the line. The processor heats up, surprisingly, not very much. Even during overclocking, the temperature is far from critical levels. This result was influenced by 2 reasons - a decrease in the second level cache and the base frequency.
CPU Intel Core Quad 9400 Specifications:
- Socket – LGA775.
- Number of cores – 4.
- Frequency – 2.66 GHz.
- The core name is Yorkfield.
- Technological process – 45 nm.
- L1 cache – 4x64 KB.
- L2 cache – 2x3072 KB.
- L3 cache - no.
- CPU voltage – 0.85-1.36 V.
- Thermal package – 95 W.
- The maximum temperature is 72 degrees.
If we talk about the capabilities of the Intel Core 2 Quad 9400, they are at the level of the first generation core i3-i5, which is a very good indicator. The processor handles many modern games without problems, often at maximum settings (but you need a good video card). If we consider the CPU for a work computer, then there are no problems here either. At one time, there were many assemblies of specialized PCs based on the Q9400. Typically, such computers were used for 3D graphics, video editing, creating special effects, etc. So if you need a good and inexpensive processor for such purposes, the 9400 will do.
