Core 2 Duo vs. Core 2 Quad benchmark results and overclocking results

I know there has been a lot of talk about which processor is better a fast duo or a slower quad. I had the chance to run some benchmarks on two of the same setups one with a T9600 Duo running at 2.8 and a Q9100 Quad running at 2.26. My first HDX18T had a problem with the media smart keys at 20 days, so I returned it and ordered a quad with the price drop.

For the benchmarks all of the components were the same -
HP HDX18T
T9600 or Q9100
Nvidia 9600GT with 1024 DDR2
4gb DDR3 RAM
320gb HD running at 7,200rpm
64bit operating system
(the T9600 was running under Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit, while the Q9100 was running under Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit)

Other specs that probably dont affect much
Intigrated TV tuner
1080p resolution (all benchmarks run at defult resolutions)
Intel Wirless N Card
Blu-ray player

All of the programs on the computer should be essentially the same. For the Duo vs. Quad comparison, I did some basic optomization mostly using System Mechanic - Defrag, registry optimization, unistalled unnecessary programs, disabled unneccesary processes...
For the Overclocked benchmarks, I did do a bit more optimization (mainly turning off indexing), but the big difference was the Graphics Card overclocking 663/1503/513.
I did not go over the top with the optimizations on any of the setups - Aero, sounds, Norton 2009, Vista Sidebar (with RSS, Stocks, Weather, Slideshow), everything normal still active.

While this test is by no means scientific, it might give some of you guys insight into the differences. I did run multiple tests in each catagory and took an average. Hope you guys enjoy!

3DMark06
Duo Quad Overclocked
Date 2/13/2009 3/5/2009 3/6/2009
3DMark Score 3734 4301 5417
SM 2.0 Score 1427 1694 2192
SM 3.0 Score 1362 1475 1890
CPU Score 2493 3353 3336

3DMark Score
Duo Quad Overclocked
Date 2/13/2009 3/5/2009 3/6/2009
3DMark Score P1296 P1311 P1753
GPU Score 1001.00 1020 1381
CPU Score 11173 9243 9282
GPU Test 1 2.90 2.81 3.78
GPU Test 2 2.97 3.18 4.51
CPU Test 1 742.89 1245.17 1238
CPU Test 2 34.98 12.1 13.47
Feature Test 1 111.73 111.69 147.38
Feature Test 2 0.65 0.64 0.87
Feature Test 3 2.90 2.97 3.74
Feature Test 4 5.75 5.48 6.38
Feature Test 5 8.08 7.85 10.09
Feature Test 6 5.45 5.63 6.95

PCMark
Duo Quad Overclocked
Date 2/14/2009 3/5/2009 3/7/2009
PCMarkSuite 3972 4106 4382
Memories Suite 2649 2948 3096
TV and Movies Suite 2858 3195 3397
Gaming Suite 3618 4056 4357
Music Suite 3599 3652 3727
Comminication Suite 4146 3889 3890
Productivity Suite 3938 3699 3988
HDD Test Suite 3128 2986 3076

Windows Experience Index (for what its worth) 5.9 is the max in Vista
Duo Quad Overclocked
Date 2/13/2009 3/5/2009 3/6/2009
Processor 5.6 5.9 5.9
RAM 5.9 5.9 5.9
Graphics 5 5 5.9
Gaming graphics 5.3 5.3 5.5
Primary Hard Disk 5.7 5.6 5.6

Hope this helps a couple people make some decisions - I'd be interested in any feedback you guys have!

 

Very nice. I am tired of seeing people ask " t9800 or q9000 " and people say Oh yeah the dual core is faster. Well now they can see.

 

hmm....CPU comparison, and no WPrime -.-

 

Very helpful. Thanks for doing the legwork!

 

if you see the wPrime scores... quad-core CPUs will kill dual cores for sure.

 

Though Q9100 is basically same as Qx9300, without the unlocked multiplier. In comparison its much superior to Q9000, but costs more than twice more($348vs $851).

By default, its nothing exceptional, but on the other laptops that support FSB overclocking, its just going to run rings around the dual cores. It would be...even faster than my G3...

 

WPrime might not be fair - at least now. Most applications aren't that multithreaded YET. After windows 7 and another round of software upgrades, it probably will be.

 

AVC HD Encoding pushes all the 4 cores of my quad to 98-100% for the full period of encoding. So, I'd say that WPrime is fair. I noticed quite a boost in performance going from a fast dual core to a slower quad core.

 

I'm sure we will see that more and more quickly too.

 

Multithreaded CPU's are of course the future especially with 8 cored nehalems beckoning but for the next few years its fair to say a quick dual core is sufficient for 80% of users.

 

Forgot to mention - overclocking was only done on quad chip

 

J, sorry for the noob question, but im ordering the same laptop and i was wondering how u over-clocked it? are you able to overclock that machine through the motherboard?

 

Dual Core does pretty well it seems. I wonder at which stage further processor speed increase only become necessary for gamers and video production machines. I guess the operating systems will find a way to eat all of that CPU with 3D GUIs in the future.

 

I still have a 7 year old P4 2.4ghz w/512mb ram and geforce mx420(I know a joke) and it loads xp sp3 in under a minute from completely off and runs itunes, internet browsing and the rest of basics without lag. Obviously has been optimised and cleaned up to the max! So yeah unless you game or do lots of encoding,compression and editing one can get by easy with old machines.

 

I can tell you without seeing it that the quad will win that benchmark since its incredibly linear. a 2ghz quad of the same series is going to be almost completely the same as a 4ghz dual.

 

Overclocking was done on just the NVidia 9600gt - I used RivaTuner
Here are two good links about overclocking the 9600gt
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-graphics-card,1916-3.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4505517#post4505517

The bios will not allow CPU overclocking

Good luck!

 

No it won't.

Take into account that the Q9100 has 12MB Cache and the Q9000 only has 6MB, the same as the many Dual cores (T9600 / T9800).

 

I know and it will still hold true what I said, the dual core only has 6mb also and I said almost completly meaning estimated not exact.

I have benched enough cpu's in my day, and especially on that specific benchmark to know how the results are going to come out. I could guess my computers time before I even ran the thing most of the time.

 

Incorrect; the whole point of offloading the GUI rendering to the GPU is so that you offload the processing from the CPU; therefore saving more processing time for other applications and services.

This would reduce the dependency on the CPU, but increase the dependency on the GPU. More reason for faster GPU's to hit the mobile market.

 

My wPrime score is 28.585. Hey Vicious, bust out a run for me once you have your Q9000 up and running.

 

Definitely will.

 

Quad all the way

15.191s on wPrime 2.0 as posted on the other thread.
This is running it as I use it, including Anti Virus running in the background.

 

I have written a short review based on benchmarks from this thread. Jnickell allowed me to use them. If you have any complaints, go ahead. I will be happy to hear them and improve content.
I left out 3DMark vantage benchmarks, because it turned out, there was a problem, because Geforce Physx was enabled during the T9600 CPU benchmark so that results are not relevant.
HERE IS THE LINK

 

My Q9000 scores 17.636 in wPrime's 32m test. Left everything running as normal (AntiVirus, AeroGlass, Sidebar, etc. etc.).

 

Wprime is not a very realistic benchmark yet...applications are just not threaded enough yet, to use wPrime as performance comparison software.

 

I think the power increase in multithreaded apps is very linear. I got around 23 secs with e7500 clocked at 3.5ghz and the q9000 at 2ghz gets 17.5 secs. I will post screenshot up when I have time.

 

14 seconds for my q9000 @ 2.85ghz
wprime 2.0

 

It's amazing how much you are squeezing out of that q9000. Keep up the good work (and let me steal your settings when done ).

What did it score at your last stable frequency? (I think you mentioned 2.7 in another thread)

 

It is important to note the version of wPrime you are using . . . v1.55 should be used for comparative benchmarking.

 

Just .15 to go, until you've made good on your 3Ghz prediction. Good luck mate.

 

I want to ask Q9100 and QX9300 owners - how does your laptop cope with heat?

 

From the overclocking results the 2 Duo seems to be just as good as the Core 2 Quad, I guess you don't really need to get the most up to date architecture and technology for processors in order to get good performance..

 

the Asus W90 takes my quad heat without even trying, overclocked to 2.75ghz and it wont even hit 60c

 

Depends on what your doing, for a game they are equal but for a cpu task like video rendering the quad is WAY faster than the dual core.

 

Cpu's with more and more cores are the future. Comparing the core 2 duo to the quad in performance is kinda silly as is comparing pentium D/P4 to dual core as programs are definitely becoming optimised for multicore performance. However it is interesting to see how the older tech holds up to the new.

What matters is what you have now and whether you are content with what you have, whether it is enough for what you do or not and if you can afford to upgrade to the best next generation technology.