# Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Benchmarked



## malware (Jan 20, 2008)

German hardware site PCGH had the opportunity to benchmark the upcoming Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor through various performance benchmarks. The 45nm Core 2 Quad Q9300 CPU is yet to be relased and features 2,5GHz (333x7.5) clock speed, 6MB L2 shared cache and only 1.2V default voltage. See all the tests here.



 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 20, 2008)

So its better than a Qx9550?? Where did they get Phenom X2's and X3's???


----------



## tofu (Jan 20, 2008)

Simulated.

Must've disabled one or two of the cores.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 20, 2008)

tofu said:


> Simulated.
> 
> Must've disabled one or two of the cores.



Is that what that means? Man AMD is gonna have a rough launch with those X2's and X3's then


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 20, 2008)

No Q9450 comparison eh?


----------



## tofu (Jan 20, 2008)

The simulated X2's and X3's are a poor performing bunch.

But if there as cheap as potato chips ~$50 lol, count me in


----------



## jbizzler (Jan 20, 2008)

How come they say MHz, not GHz?


----------



## Nanyang (Jan 20, 2008)

Wow.... that nice oc cpu... Izit at stock cooling?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 20, 2008)

jbizzler said:


> How come they say MHz, not GHz?



Because for instance 3500MHz is roughly 3.5GHz. 2500MHz is roughly 2.5GHz, etc, etc.


----------



## jbizzler (Jan 21, 2008)

Well, the QX9650 says 3.000 MHz, when I assume it should be 3.000 GHz.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 21, 2008)

jbizzler said:


> Well, the QX9650 says 3.000 MHz, when I assume it should be 3.000 GHz.



Maybe they downclocked it lol im still hoping for a Q2200


----------



## Weer (Jan 21, 2008)

Well, we can clearly see where the extra 4 threads brought by HyperThreading make a difference.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 21, 2008)

jbizzler said:


> Well, the QX9650 says 3.000 MHz, when I assume it should be 3.000 GHz.



3000MHz is 3GHz.


----------



## kwchang007 (Jan 21, 2008)

Weer said:


> Well, we can clearly see where the extra 4 threads brought by HyperThreading make a difference.



Uh I thought they were bringing back hyperthreading with nehlam, not penryn.


----------



## Duxx (Jan 21, 2008)

I just want my Q9450... too impatient.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 21, 2008)

phenom just got raped ... no hope ..


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 21, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> phenom just got raped ... no hope ..



brutally at that.. I really dont think AMD can survive much longer if they dont step up and release some good chips  I cant even imagine how high intels prices would go if there wasnt a competitor


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 21, 2008)

Duxx said:


> I just want my Q9450... too impatient.



As do I.


----------



## Duxx (Jan 21, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> brutally at that.. I really dont think AMD can survive much longer if they dont step up and release some good chips  I cant even imagine how high intels prices would go if there wasnt a competitor



They would produce a new chip every 5 years for 1000$. :shadedshu 
hah


----------



## a111087 (Jan 21, 2008)

look at how single core cpu performs in World in Conflict, lol


----------



## jbizzler (Jan 21, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> 3000MHz is 3GHz.



Yeah, but it doesn't say 3000, it says 3.000, i.e. 3 with 3 significant zeroes following the decimal point.

I know it doesn't matter, but I think it's just kind of funny to think of any processor released within the last decade would operate at only 3 MHz. maybe those are just really difficult-to-see commas.

It' so odd the way the CPU market is going. Before we're used to the performance one new core gives us, we get another crazy performance boost. I find myself wishing it would slow down soon.


----------



## Drash (Jan 21, 2008)

jbizzler said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't say 3000, it says 3.000, i.e. 3 with 3 significant zeroes following the decimal point.
> 
> I know it doesn't matter, but I think it's just kind of funny to think of any processor released within the last decade would operate at only 3 MHz. maybe those are just really difficult-to-see commas.
> :



Maybe that's because they're German - they write 3 thousand as 3.000 and 3 point zero as 3,0. French do this as well as a few other Eu countries.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Jan 21, 2008)

Seems my 3800+ is aging...


----------



## kakazza (Jan 21, 2008)

Comma is a deciamal seperator.
Most English-speaking countries use a period tho, no idea why.



> however ISO standards recommend the use of comma instead of points also in English speaking countries


----------



## erocker (Jan 21, 2008)

jbizzler said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't say 3000, it says 3.000, i.e. 3 with 3 significant zeroes following the decimal point.



What's the point?!  Who cares!


----------



## rhythmeister (Jan 21, 2008)

kakazza said:


> Comma is a deciamal seperator.
> Most English-speaking countries use a period tho, no idea why.



We use full stops here


----------



## hat (Jan 21, 2008)

Wait, so these 45nm chips are hyperthreaded? Are they "true" quads too?


----------



## vega22 (Jan 21, 2008)

i thought we all use a comma to seperate every thousand???

3,000,000,000,000,000so on and so......

i think the pic has been edited in some form or other because if you look at each line it is as if there are a few pixles missing of the bottom of the text.

man i want a q9300 now tho 

edit



rhythmeister said:


> We use full stops here



pmslmao


----------



## Morgoth (Jan 21, 2008)

kwchang007 said:


> Uh I thought they were bringing back hyperthreading with nehlam, not penryn.



yes only Nehalem Architect and sandybridge architect and the newer versions posible



hat said:


> Wait, so these 45nm chips are hyperthreaded? Are they "true" quads too?


Only Nehalem architect and Sandybridge architect and the newer versions posible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(CPU_architecture)


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 21, 2008)

Looks nice at the price it's supposed to be, cant quite see the point of comparing it with loads of other CPU's in those benches that are clocked lower apart from the AMD comparisons of course, thing is, with a 7.5 multi it aint gonna go much faster than that 3.5Gig which means that a 65nm Kentsfield will better it in most cases (providing it's price competative).....I do think the 9450 is going to be the one to get!..............


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 21, 2008)

marsey99 said:


> i thought we all use a comma to seperate every thousand???
> 
> 3,000,000,000,000,000so on and so......
> 
> i think the pic has been edited in some form or other because if you look at each line it is as if there are a few pixles missing of the bottom of the text.



DUDE, as many above posts have said,... in europe they write 3,000.00 as 3.000,00 check your windows language settings and u'll see... there is nothing being cut off, trust me.

anyways, a quad at 3.5 GHz with gobs of cache is gonna be tough to beat... but then again, i dont think AMD is going anywhere, and once the phenom bugs are out theyre gonna be nice, cheap quadcores.


----------



## Ser-J (Jan 22, 2008)

erocker said:


> What's the point?!  Who cares!


I was just about to say that


----------

