Counting transistors??

[Vertigon]

Many of you may have already come across this chart http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm and are aware of its many mistakes. My questions is does anyone have confirmation of exactly how many transistors the QX9650 has opposed to the Q9450?....yes I did try emailing Intel, by I think the janitor replied.

 

[yomamafor1]

They are supposed to have identical number of transistors. I believe it is a typo on Intel's part. As you can see on the "intro date", the Q9xxx series still bear the launch date of Jan-08, while its realistic launch date is somewhere in March.

What was Intel's response?

 

[Vertigon]

Well Intel actually confirmed the 820 million transistors on the QX9650 and only 410 million for the Q9450. The Duo's also have 410 million, how does that work considering the 4 cores of the Q9450 and 12Mb cache? Sorry for anyone who just bought a Q9450 thinking the multiplier was the only compromise.

 

[Zorg]

What difference does it make? If that is true (link?), then it does seem like a lot. But the QX9650 is $1030 and the q9450 is only $380. I would like to see benches with both chips at the same clock speed before I get in a tizzy about any transistor discrepancy.

 

[Vertigon]

Sure maybe it doesn't matter if your running notepad, but another 410 million transistors is a god send with 4 cores loaded to the hilt in a complex 3D enviroment.

 

[Vertigon]

Hmm Intel are saying only 410 million for the Q9450 and Q9550.

 

[Zorg]

Like I said, I'll believe it when I see the benches.

 

[yomamafor1]

Sure maybe it doesn't matter if your running notepad, but another 410 million transistors is a god send with 4 cores loaded to the hilt in a complex 3D enviroment.

Actually it doesn't matter that much, if Intel has streamlined its transistor budget.

Also, Q9300 would definitely have less working transistor than Q9650 due to smaller L2 cache.

 

[Vertigon]

They have some benchmarks here: http://www.hardware.info/en-US/productdb/bGRkaJiXmJTK/viewproduct/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9450/
if you click the little graph on the right you can see the bench's of other cpu's in comparison. The Q9450 fairs well with current software compared to the Q6600 and even the Qx9650.

 

[Zorg]

I would like to see benchmarks with the CPUs set to the same, or near same, frequencies, to take the frequency differential out of the equation.

To illustrate my reasoning, I set my Q6600 to the specs in the CPU-Z pic.

The 3DMark06 bench in your link were as follows

Q6600 @ 2400 1066 FSB 3528
Q9450 @ 2660 1333 FSB 3951

My Score
Q6600 @ 2664 1333 FSB 4215



I ran the 3DMark06 bench with my Q6600 at 3G/1333 and got a score of 4660.

That puts it about halfway between these two CPUs.

QX9650 3.0G/1333 4445
QX9770 3.2G/1600 4853

How is this possible?

 

[Vertigon]

Well considering your oc'd Q6600 is near the stock Q9450 clock and that your oc'd cpu rates 300 points higher might suggest transistors are significant. Hard to determine since the Q6600 has 172m more transistors on it than the Q9450. Refer to my original post http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm

 

[Zorg]

Well something is screwy. I guess there is really no reason to spend any more money than the price of the Q6600.

 

[Vertigon]

Depends how you look at it, you might be a well paid engineer, physicist etc, dropping an extra $800 on a machine your not going to need to upgrade for 2 years might be a bargain and a dam convenient idea. If your a kid in school working at the local convenience store and using his comp to play Halo and download porn, keeping the $800 in your pocket might be a better idea. The tragedy is in wanting to need it but not needing it. Also in an era of multiple cores every improvement is an inprovement x2, or 4, soon x6 and x8. I love you world!!!! Huggggsss!!!!!

 

[Andrius]

All Q9xxx have 2x 410M transistors as they are made from two 410M dies (a Q9450 is made from two E8200 dies (with 410M transistors each)).
I'm not sure about the Q9300 but it's still two of those dies.
It has half the cache (either disabled due to defects or it's different dies but I don't think they make 2 different dies).

As for the 3D Mark scores ... they are strange (old code I guess).

 

[jimmysmitty]

Um guys.... Am I the only one who finds it weird that they also list it a s a "Core 2 Extreme Quad Processor Q9450/Q9550/Q9300"?

And the Q6600 is showing that it has a 1333MHz FSB when it really has a 1066MHz FSB.

Obviously this is either old or just all wrong.

 

[WR]

The Pentium D 9xx had 376 million transistors for two cores. Wow, that must have been one beast. Close to the 410 million on full fledged Wolfdales.

 

[bob8701]

trassistor number is not important for compare two generation cpu, single current transistor may get job down which may required two or more old transistors.

 

[ctbaars]

All Q9xxx have 2x 410M transistors as they are made from two 410M dies (a Q9450 is made from two E8200 dies (with 410M transistors each)).
I'm not sure about the Q9300 but it's still two of those dies.
It has half the cache (either disabled due to defects or it's different dies but I don't think they make 2 different dies).

As for the 3D Mark scores ... they are strange (old code I guess).

Do they use some double cheesburger glue to put them together?
Quad cores are defective cpu's?

 

[Andrius]

The Pentium D 9xx had HyperThreading support (basicly two cores in one) even if HT was only enabled for Extreme Editions I think. It also had a lot of L2 Cache for those times and it had a silly long pipeline so all of that accounts for the extra transistors (190M per die).

 

[Andrius]

Do they use some double cheesburger glue to put them together?
Quad cores are defective cpu's?

The dies Intel makes Q9300s out of are probably the same dies they make other Q9x50 quads out off but they are binned (for whatever reason, most likely they failed the L2 cache test or they have to high a TDP) as only having half the L2 cache.

Cheeseburger glue might work for roaches and brainlobes ... but firing up two hot chips dipped into it presents a serious fire hazard

 

[Zorg]

No comments on my bench results? Anyone have any Ideas?

 

[endyen]

No comments on my bench results? Anyone have any Ideas?

Are you using the same gfx card? ram? (including latency) mobo?
Even a different psu might give a change.
There are too many variables to make any kind of reasonable conclusion.

 

[Zorg]

Are you using the same gfx card? ram? (including latency) mobo?
Even a different psu might give a change.
There are too many variables to make any kind of reasonable conclusion.

Well I don't believe that. I ran the same bench with the settings in the pic and got a score of 4207, which is lower but in the wind, so it's not RAM or FSB speed. My VGA is a X1950 Pro, nothing special there, and this is supposed to be a CPU test not a VGA/CPU test. As far as the PSU, if it is sufficient then it will have absolutely no affect on the bench. I would hope that the mobo wouldn't cause the massive differences. I don't see the mobo used, but I hope they didn't use a POS. Either way I would like to know, so that I can avoid it.

Any other variables that might cause my Q6600 to show so well? I even have the CPU under volted, C1E/EIST is disabled. What you see in the CPU-Z screenshot is what you get.

I just noticed that he was running :lol: Vista :lol: If it is the OS that is causing the disparity, then it really sucks worse than I thought.

 

[Andrius]

In 3D Mark 2006 CPU test there is no real difference between the QX9650 and QX6850 (both 3.0GHz so the architectural changes and the increased L2 cache are not important, likely due to it being an older benchmark). Both score around 4350 on a P35 with 800MHz RAM.

Your test is "an anomaly in unbalanced equation" and without proper means of controlling the variables we can't say anything conclusive.

EDIT: Maybe it's the fact that your FSB is 443MHz insted of 333MHz.
I've ran some Sandra benchmarks (CPU INT+FLOAT) a few days back and got scores above the QX6850 and QX9650 which seemed unlikely.
All three CPUs have the same clock, so a QX9650 should be around 10% better in arithmetics.

 

[Zorg]

In 3D Mark 2006 CPU test there is no real difference between the QX9650 and QX6850 (both 3.0GHz so the architectural changes and the increased L2 cache are not important, likely due to it being an older benchmark). Both score around 4350 on a P35 with 800MHz RAM.

Your test is "an anomaly in unbalanced equation" and without proper means of controlling the variables we can't say anything conclusive.

EDIT: Maybe it's the fact that your FSB is 443MHz insted of 333MHz.
I've ran some Sandra benchmarks (CPU INT+FLOAT) a few days back and got scores above the QX6850 and QX9650 which seemed unlikely.
All three CPUs have the same clock, so a QX9650 should be around 10% better in arithmetics.

My test is "an anomaly in unbalanced equation"? :lol:

I ran the Bench at Q6600 @ 2400 1066 FSB and got 3786 compared to their 3528.
If you look again you will see that the test at 443 in my second bench shows a lower score by 7 points 4215 ->4207. That's going the wrong way and is in the wind.

At any rate, I should have run the test above to get a base line, oops. As I said earlier it's not the RAM or FSB. It's not the PSU and not the VGA. It's probably not, or at least shouldn't be, the mobo. I guess that leaves Vista.

Vista, what a piece if DRM laden pigsh!t.

All hail the king...XP that is. :lol: