The impact of cache
To start with, we wanted to compare the performances of the Conroe 4 MB, Penryn 3 MB and Penryn 6 MB in our test applications and this at equivalent frequencies in order to concentrate on the impact of cache and architectural improvements.
More specifically, we compared a Q6600, Q9300 and QX9650, all at the same frequency of 7x333, or in other words, 2.33 GHz. The Q6600 was attributed a 100% in the performance index in order to facilitate the comparison of scores :
Overall, between the Conroe 4 MB and Penryn 3 MB, performances are similar as the difference is +/- 2%. The exception is found in video encoding where the benefit of SSE4 is felt, notably in TMPGEnc as well as with DiVX.
We can see that the transition from 3 to 6 MB on the Penryn has a real impact on performances : 2.4% in 3ds, 1.7% in Maya, 6.3% in WinRAR, 3.4% in TMPGEnc, 3.1% in DiVX, 0.7% in Nuendo, 3.5% in Crysis and 6.1% in World In Conflict.
Power consumption
We measure power consumption of the processor’s power supply stage with the help of an ammetric clip on the ATX12V connection line which it uses exclusively. This allows us to better isolate CPU power use instead of obtaining overall consumption. The only thing we should keep in mind is that the CPU power supply stage has an efficiency of between 80 and 90%.
The figures obtained by Intel 45nm processors are impressive to say the least. First of all, at rest in the worst case scenario we are at 11.2W with the QX9650, while the E7200 consumes almost nothing! In load, results are also excellent because the Q9300 is close to 45W versus more than 70W for a Q6600 G0! As for the E7200, it’s content to run with a little less than 21W, an impressive number for a desktop CPU.
Overclocking
Starting with a relatively low VID of 1.05v, of course we wanted to know to what extent the E7200 and Q9300 are suited to overclocking. This involves stable overclocking, validated by as many sessions of Prime95 as there are cores for 30mn.
We started with the E7200 set at 9.5x266 (2.53 GHz) by default. The first objective was to attain 3 GHz, the frequency reached by E8x00s with a voltage of 1.05V. In this case, it didn’t even boot and we had to move up to 1.25V in order to reach our target. Increasing voltage to 1.35V, we weren’t able to attain a stable 3.1 GHz, although apparently some have obtained better scores with their E7200s. Unless somehow limited in this area, overclocking values of this CPU thus seem to be random.
And the Q9300? The first thing to point out is that it functions starting in 7.5x333 (2.5 GHz). We therefore had to push the FSB rather far to obtain high frequencies; however, not all motherboards are capable of this, especially with a quad core. In actuality, we were able to attain 3 GHz (7.5x400) at 1.2V and then 3.22 GHz (7.5x430) at 1.25V.
Beyond this value, the system was very unstable and it proved to be an FSB limit related to the CPU. We couldn’t surpass 430 MHz by lowering the coefficient while with a Q6600 G0 the motherboard we used (a P5E based on an X38) functioned easily with an FSB of 450 MHz. Otherwise, the overclocked Q9300 consumed 61.2W versus 44.9W with standard settings.
In short, while the results of the E7200 and Q9300 are far from being catastrophic, we could have expected better. For comparison, the latest E8500 that we received was at 3.4 GHz for 1.2V and 3.8 GHz for 1.3V.
The test
We now move on to the comparison of these processors with other dual and quad cores with our test suite. The following configurations were used:
- GeForce 8800 GTX / ForceWare 169.01
- 2 x 1024 Mo DDR2-800 4-4-4
- 2 x Raptor 74 GB
- Windows XP SP2 French
- Socket 775 : ASUSTeK P5E Deluxe
- Socket AM2+ : ASUSTEK M3A32-MVP Deluxe
