Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300

Verdict:

[+] Quad

Penryn architecture; power frugal

[-] Dual

Only 6MB Level 2 cache; not as overclockable as other Penryn CPUs; Q660 is better value

As the Penryn-based, Wolfdale-core Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 is an overclocking powerhouse, we expected a similar display from the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300, the cheapest of the Penryn architecture quad-core CPUs. After all, this CPU essentially comprises two Wolfdale dies.

The Q9300 is the lowliest of the new batch of quad-core processors, being rated at just 2.5GHz and having 6MB of Level 2 cache rather then the 12MB of its siblings. With these lowly specs, we have a nagging doubt that the Q9300 only just made the grade as being worthy of the 'Core 2' badge at all.

YORKFIELD AND SPECIFICATIONS

Yorkfield is the name of this new 45nm Q9300 has an unusual multiplier of 7.5 and an FSB of 333MHz (1,333MHz effective) to provide its 2.5GHz rating. This compares poorly with the 3GHz dual-core E8400, although it's faster than Intel's cheapest quad-core processor, the legendary 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 (G0 stepping, naturally).

The Q6600 is the CPU that should be feeling hot under the collar with the arrival of the new Q9300, even though Aria sells the OEM (i.e. supplied without cooler) Q6600 for only£111.57 inc VAT. The Q6600 also has 8MB of Level 2 cache compared to the 6MB of the Q9300. However, as the Q9300 has an extra 100MHz clock clock speed, and the Penryn architecture is four per cent faster clock for clock than the Core architecture of the Q6600, Intel is hoping the extra £55 for the Q9300 won't look quite so bad

PERFORMANCE

Our benchmarks initially went pretty much as expected. The Q9300 scored 929 in the Gimp test, faster than the 878 of the Q6600 by around 10 per cent. However, the Handbrake H.264 video encoding test showed a smaller difference between the CPUs, with the Q9300 beating the Q6600 by a meagre 41 points - just 4 per cent.

The multitasking test proved the superiority of the 8MB cache of the Q6600, as it scored 890 compared to the Q9300's 749; this means that the new processor is 19 per cent slower than the older, cheaper CPU in this test. The overall scores at stock speeds were similar, the Q9300 scores 1,020 compared to the Q6600's 1,036.

The Cinebench test yielded a score of 9,550 for the Q9300, compared to the Q6600's 8,778, so again, the extra clock speed and the faster Penryn architecture of the Q9300 won out. The SuperPi 1M score was 20.311 seconds with the Q9300 compared to 21.591 seconds with the Q6600.

In Supreme Commander, the Q9300 managed an 8fps minimum and a 39fps average, compared to the Q6600's 10fps minimum and 41fps average, so the extra cache of the Q6600 is better for gaming. While the Q9300 is a newer architecture than the Q6600 and has a higher clock speed, our test shows that cache is still an important factor in a CPU.

OVERCLOCKING

Expectations for a great overclock were high, as the 45nm Penryn architecture is very overclockable. We tried for a 467MHz FSB with a 1.6V vcore and 1.4V on the Northbridge, which should have yielded a clock speed of 3.5GHz, the 1GHz increase we've come to expect from an Intel Core 2 CPU.

Sadly, the PC refused to POST. We had to drop the FSB to 450MHz to make the PC stable, and scale the vcore back to 1.5V accordingly, to achieve a 3.375GHz quad-core CPU. This is a fairly modest overclock - a 2.4GHz Q6600 can be coaxed to around 3.6GHz. With previous Penryn architecture CPUs, we've added as much as 1.2GHz to their rated frequencies.

OVERCLOCKED PERFORMANCE

The overclock improved performance, but the Q9300 fell short of the overclocked 3.6GHz Q6600 in every test. The Gimp test returned 1,245 compared to the 1,292 of the overclocked Q6600. The Handbrake video encoding test scored 1,856 with the Q9300, compared to the 1,981of the Q6600, while the multitasking test came in at 1,023 with the Q9300, compared to the 1,159 scored by the 3.6GHz Q6600.

The Q9300 scored 1,375 overall compared to the 1,477 of the Q6600, making the new CPU 7 per cent slower than the cheaper Q6600 when both CPUs are overclocked to their maximum frequencies.

In Cinebench, the overclocked Q9300 managed 12,577, and SuperPi 1M proved to be 25 per cent quicker, at an impressive 15.163 seconds. Supreme Commander was 1fps faster, for a 9fps minimum and a 40fps maximum.

At least the Q9300 is quite power-frugal; our test system drew 185W at stock speeds, and 269W when overvolted and overclocked. With the Q6600 installed it drew 254W at stock speeds.

CONCLUSION

The Core 2 Quad Q9300 costs £56 more than Intel's cheapest quad-core CPU, the Core 2 Quad Q6600. It's clearly the runt of new litter too, with its 6MB cache (half the amount of the other 45m CPUs) and low clock speeds. It's only marginally faster at stock speeds than the cheaper Q6600, and doesn't overclock as well. Our advice is to either go for one of the 12MB Core 2 Quad Q9-series or buy the Q6600.

You can buy the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 from Scan Computers for £166.84 inc VAT (price correct at time of review)

For more information on the Core 2 Quad Q9300, visit Intel's website

• Antec Mini P180 - Cases
• Turok - Games
• ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 - Graphics cards
• Cooler Master Cosmos S - Cases
• Lian Li PC-P60 Armorsuit - Cases
• Asus Rampage Formula - Motherboards
• Gigabyte GV-NX96T512H-B - Graphics cards