Q9000 vs P8400

Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9000 (2.00GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache)

vs

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 3MB L2 Cache)

I will be playing games such as Crysis, Fallout, and Oblivion on my computer. Which core would be most beneficial to have?

 

With that small difference get the Q9000, its a better all round processor
Its going to be more expensive.
If the T9800 and Q9000 were the same price, I would get the Q9000 over it. 4 cores is better than 2.
A member posted a few weeks back about the actual PCMARK differences.
He tested a high clocked dual core to a low clocked quad in his laptop and the Quad outperformed the dual core

I will try and find the link for you

K-TRON

 

The Q9000 is hands up the best
You'll have quad core over dual core and 6MB L2 cache over 3MB that the p8400 has.

 

Thank you both for the help. The reason that I ask is because I was reading up in this thread and got a bit concerned.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=363996

 

I trust benchmarks more than a group of people here,
read this, you will find your answer:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=360481&highlight=quad

K-TRON

 

Well, the thing is that a lower-clocked quad will almost certainly beat a high-clocked dual core, in applications that can use all 4 cores. Some older games (and even some recent ones) cannot use all 4 cores, so the higher-clocked dual core could outperform the lower-clocked quad core.

In the future, though, more and more applications will be quad-core optimized. Therefore, if you are not concerned about battery lifetime and cost, go for the Q9000. The difference in clock speed is negligible between those two anyway.

 

How much is the difference? I mean if the Q9000 isn't much more expensive then I would go for that, else stick with the P8600.

 

Thanks for the link. Very helpful

 

The price difference is roughly $200 (I know a guy...).

 

Okay, so let me get this straight - In applications that allow you to use all four cores, a quad core is the way to go. In apps in which you can only use two, the 2.0 ghz quad core is actually being treated like a 2.0 ghz duo, therefore negating the other two cores. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

That is pretty much correct.

 

I'd also go with the quad. Many modern games, like Crysis, are optimized to use 4 cores, so that will just help you. The .26 ghz clockspeed difference is almost undectable. The 3 and 4 cores could always be used for running something in the background while gaming, as well. In the future, the quad will definetly help (as more apps become optimized for quad).

For just common work, the quad will also be better if you're running 2+ apps at the same time (which I feel like most people do). Regarding your question with the 2.0 quad being treated as a 2.0 duo, in theory yes, in practice, maybe not. and anyway, let me reiterate. .26ghz is almost negligible. The choice between a Q9000 and something like a T9800 (2.93ghz dual vs 2.0 quad) is much more difficult (and even then some people go for the dual).

 

Q9000 is pretty much a pair of P7350 (slight step down from P8400)glued together, hence its got almost twice the TDP of 45W, vs 25W.

Which will cut the battery by quite a bit; however, it means in multicore apps, you'll finish the same task in halve the time.

 

Man since the price of Q9000 went down, there is so much dual VS q9000 threads

In between a P9600 or T9800 with Q9000, I'd go for the dual, since lots of games aren't optimized for quad, and it generates less heat and gives better battery life. That is considering I don't use heavy multi-threaded apps.

But if you only have the choice between a P8400 and a Q9000, then the Q9000 is winning hands up I'd say. The only bad thing is the .26ghz less, which won't make any difference, everything else is better with the quad. (Unless you really care about longer battery life)

 

For me the issue is more the price difference, $200 to upgrade isn't a good deal unless you do a lot of work that requires quad core - then the cost is offset by the benefits.

 

"Many modern games like Crysis"? So then you can name, maybe, 5 mainstream games off the top of your head?

If you're doing encoding, fine, take the quad, but for gaming, a faster dual core is still the better choice right now.

I would choose the Q9000 over the P8400, but the Q9100 and QX9300 aren't worth the exorbitant price increases over the faster Core 2 Duo CPUs.

 

I just want replace P8400 and put in T9800...

 

Why do you want to do that? What are you using your CPU for?

 

In this case I think all of you are focussing on the wrong things. The Q9000 has 6MB of cache wich is obviously better than 3MB. Just because a game or app can only use 2 cores doesn't mean that it will only use 3MB of cache. Quad Cores are better, and like we already know, the 0.26GHz of the P8400 is not nearly enought to put it in the lead. No question, go woth the quad.

When you compare the Q9000 Quad Core against a T9600 / T9800 Dual Core with the same amount of cache (6MB) the tides might turn in the favour of the dual cores. I think that even when a game is optimized for Quad cores the frequency of the cpu still makes a big difference. the question is how much of a difference? I think (and I only think) that the T9600 and T9800 cpu's would outperform the Q9000 quad by quite a bit in games like Crysis and Farcry 2, both of wich has been optimized for quad core.

Do anyone agree with me? Im not sure but these are my thought. I simply think the Q9000 is clocked too low.

 

Past 3MB of L2 cache, there's little difference in performance, so it'll be negligible in games.

 

Also, clock speed at 2.0GHz is good enough for games. Clocking it higher won't make much difference in most games as they are GPU limited.

 

for very quick response of mine computer ...
i hate when i open window and watching how that vista cursor spinning and spinning and spinning
even sony vegas when i importing 16gb documentary ( africa serengeti ) it takes some hours ...

 

Ok. I'll admit that the only games I play out of these 8 is GTA IV and FSX. I can't say for sure that they support quad, but in each case, I did a little research, and came to that conclusion. Please feel free to point out errors.

1) Crysis
2) GTA IV
3) Supreme Commander
4) Half-Life 2
5) Far Cry 2
6) Flight Simulator X
7) BioShock
8) Unreal Tournament 3