Q9650 vs. QX9300

Which one is better ?

The Q9650 maybe dektop, but surely the QX9300 has the advantage since it is "extreme" ?

Regards,
OGLES

 

Q9650 decimates any mobile chip period. Desktop > notebook. Extreme just means unlocked multiplier, but you need the proper BIOS to OC the CPU.

 

yup, even the cheap Q6600 desktop quad will kill the mobile quad-cores.... especially if we are talking about price/performance ratios.

 

I agree with sgogeta4 and Gophn, the Desktop Quad Cores will beat the Mobile Quad Cores.

 

And notebook manufacturers are not going to provide a BIOS with a completely unlocked multiplier. Most BIOSs are limited to a certain frequency, because with an increase in frequency, the power consumption increases too, and so does the heat produced.

At most, you'll be allowed to bump up the multiplier from 9.5 to 11.5/12x, which will give you a clock frequency of ~3.0GHz.

The Q9650 runs at 3GHz, at a much higher bus speed, and is considerably cheaper.

Overclocking in notebooks is, well, senseless.

 

A 3Ghz wuad core desktop processor will be much faster than a 3.0Ghz laptop quad core processor. Mobile cpu's use a stripped down architecture of ther desktop counterparts. Many integral components on laptop cpu's are cut from the die, to reduce power. The cpu also has a lower voltage to maintain power efficiency, so the mobile chip will run cooler, but as a result get about 50 - 70% the power as its desktop chip.

Plus the cooling solutions in just about every laptop suck, so overclocking a laptop is not a good idea unless you have a system which runs cool, like under 60C at max load.

K-TRON

 

yeh did a few wprime calculations, and a laptop C2D cpu will get about 66% of the speed of a desktop C2D cpu, at the same clock frequency. Flip this round and you see that desktop cpus perform about 50% faster.

i agree since notebooks are 90% passively cooled....

 

Tell that to the many Dell XPS, Sager/Clevo, Gateway, [enter other make of high end gaming notebooks] owners here who do it.

 

A fact is a fact. I do not need to go and justify this to each of the "many Dell XPS, Sager/Clevo, Gateway, [enter other make of high end gaming notebooks] owners here".

 

Well, unless you can argue that it's senseless to obtain significantly better performance from your notebook by overclocking it to a reasonable level, then your "fact" is merely opinion.

 

Overclocking on Desktop >>> Overclocking on Notebook.

Desktops have better cooling options. Giant copper heatsinks, watercooling, etc. Better airflow.

Notebooks have poorer cooling and less aftermarket options.

Overclocked Desktop > Overlocked Notebook.

 

okay ichime,
I can back up Andy.
Well the cooling system in a laptop cannot be upgraded, and in most cases under normal operating speeds the system can reach upwards of 80C.
By overclocking the graphics or cpu, is done at the owners loss. That cpu or gou will put extra load on the systems cooling system, resulting in premature system failure. Overclocking is never a good idea, because you are forcing more current through an electrical circuit. Once the load is too high, pop goes the cpu or gpu. Laptop components are very expensive in regards to their desktop counterparts, so if they overclock they will end up paying the price for that small performance gain they get.

K-TRON

 

If you want the fun of OC, get a desktop or a faster notebook from the beginning the performance gain isn't that much when it's reasonable, otherwise it makes the fan go full speed ahead more than normal, i'd rather skip the annoying sound of these small fans and the heat too.

A fact is still a fact though, not an opinion as opinions are emotional.

 

I tested this myself - see a few posts down - and the wPrime results are not showing that. A mobile chip will have lower performance per dollar, but I'm not buying the lower performance per megahertz with the benchmarks I just got. At least not with current Core 2's.

Seriously? It just seems hard to believe that in all the time I've been here I've never heard that - and the per MHz increase in Core 2 Santa Rosa was already so much over Pentium 4 Northwood desktop that I never questioned that laptop Core 2 was just as good as desktop.

I'll certainly try to test that when I get the chance and post benchmarks here. Might not be quite identical since the closest desktop CPU I know I can test is 1.86 GHz, but if it performs 50% faster then that would prove this (both tests on XP SP3).

It's certainly not senseless. You could argue whether it's worth the temperatures, but you could on a desktop card, too, and the temperature increase isn't necessarily that much (at least not at the GPU overclocks I do - maybe it is if you push it as far as possible). True, result-wise you'll usually get better results from overclocking a desktop. But if you're overclocking to the limits of the card you're running a risk no matter what the card.

I can understand that electrically it's not a good idea, but as I'm pretty confident my GPU will last five of more years already based on past experience I'm willing to take a bit of risk that way for better performance. If it fails, I can switch for a lower-end compatible Dell GPU.

 

...which is why I said reasonable levels i.e. levels that can be handled by the stock cooling systems. Sure, desktops can be overclocked higher, but that's not the point. Both systems would see a significant performance increase from a reasonable overclock (for example, from 500mhz to 600mhz core clock on a 7950 GTX, and from 3.06 to around 3.5 ghz for an X9100).

Side point: Speaking of overclocking being "senseless" and that being a fact, why then did Intel manufacture extreme chips for notebooks?

Well, I would argue what I argued to the first quote. I think the issue here is the degree of overclocking, which wasn't taken into account. Of course overclocking anything to 10 ghz is going to destroy the CPU, even in a desktop. But again, unless someone can prove subjectively that overclocking to a reasonable level with stock cooling where the CPU and GPUs aren't burnt to crisp is senseless, then Andy's assertion is not an absolute fact.

 

Relatively it might not be much, but it's still significant nonetheless. Hold on, I'll show some examples if I'm not lazy tonight...

Edit: ok, well I can't find (too lazy to do too much cross-referencing) posts that show what a stock Dell XPS M1730 with the 8800M GTXs in SLi, 4 gigs and a X9000 processor scores stock, but I did find a different make with pretty much the same specs. An Alienware M17x with those specs scores around 12,800ish in 3dmark06. Take a look at the following:

http://www.notebookforums.com/revie...odel=XPS+M1730&Video_Card=&benchtype=3DMark06

These are averages of overclocked M1730s and their corresponding 3dmark06 scores. The difference in OC vs Stock is almost the same difference from a mid-range notebook with a 9700M GT and a higher range notebook system with a better processor and a 9800M GTS (which is a pretty big leap).

Of course, this is merely a benchmarking program and although you won't be guaranteed the same exact uniformity in performance increase in games, there will be an increase in gaming performance. I'll show more examples of gaming improvements via notebook overclocks tomorrow (or if someone can help me out with their OC'd notebooks with a before and after scenario).

 

That's not entirely true. Just a few days ago I benched my T8300 against my brother's Q6600 (using POV-Ray v3.6 (single-threaded to almost eliminate the effect of other cores) for an assignment) and although my T8300 beat it, it was only about 5-10% (but that's expected due to the minor architectural improvements that Penryn brought). So, at the same frequencies, both mobile and desktop CPUs should theoretically perform the same, when the FSB is saturated though (this is probably where you're getting your numbers from jisaac) the desktop CPU will outperform the mobile one because of the higher FSB speeds. Attached are my results from all the system (in MS Office and OpenOffice format).

EDIT: also check out notebookcheck.net and their mobile/desktop CPU benchmark (using Super Pi) list. The mobile ones are actually very close to the desktop CPUs many times (within a small margin of error).

 

So I actually did benchmarks on this tonight, and no, the wPrime results do not confirm this. I ran it on two machines, a desktop with an E6750 (2.66 GHz, 4 MB L2, 1333 FSB), and my laptop with a T7500 (2.20 GHz, 4 MB L2, 800 FSB). I got these results:





So I looked at performance per megahertz. What I did was divide the wPrime test into 1 million equal sections, purely to have numbers that are easy to deal with. Then I take 1 million divided by the time, divided by the megahertz, to get performance per second per megahertz. This tells how efficient a processor is per megahertz. By jisaac's theory, this figure should be 50% higher for the desktop. Here's the stats:

E6750: 1,000,000/32.782 = 30,505 performance points. DivBy 2,660 MHz = 11.47 points per MHz
T7500: 1,000,000/39.89 = 25,069 performance points. DivBy 2220 MHz = 11.29 points per MHz

The desktop CPU performs 1.6% better per megahertz! That's a far cry from 50%! This could easily be attributed to the faster FSB (1333 v. 800) rather than the mobile CPU's being slower per megahertz. So I think this is a myth rather than fact - it seems that for the same megahertz and architecture, a mobile CPU's performance will be nearly identical to a desktop CPU's performance.

Both systems were running Windows XP SP3 with Sophos Anti-Virus installed and running. The exact processes were not identical (can't modify a school computer that much), but made sure there were no CPU hogs running during the testing on either machine.

 

Yeah, it's always been a myth that equivalent desktop CPUs are so much more powerful than notebook counterparts. The following review compares an X9000 to an E6850 and a E6600:

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-2-Extreme-Mobile-X9000-Notebook-Penryn-Speed/?page=1

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24683&d=1222211602
http://forum.notebookreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24682&d=1222211602

X9000s can be overclocked well, provided that there is nothing limiting the OC

But HEAT !!

 

sorry but this is kinda off topic but if a Core 2 Duo processor for a desktop has the same clock speed as a notebook the desktop will perform better?

 

Nope. Difference isn't much.

Compared the X9000 and the X6800 here.

 

While at the same speed, there is only a slight benefit, the Q9650 is of the latest Yorkfield line (native quad core) and runs at 3Ghz, a good 500MHz above the QX9300 (of the latest Penryn line, basically 2x dual cores slapped together). So you would need a really well cooled (cryo? lol) to even reach the same speed, while the desktop version could OC easily to 3.6GHz on air since it has a 9x multiplier.

 

ive never really understood the difference between a desktop and mobility cpu. If they are both the same Ghz what makes a desktop more powerful?

 

A Desktop CPU and a Mobile CPU, with the same Frequency, L1/L2 Cache, FSB, etc, will perform literally the same (Considering the Design/Architecture is different).

Desktop CPUs tend to have higher FSBs, and are cheaper as compared to Mobile CPUs. But Mobile CPUs on the other hand, have a lower TDP....

 

No cryo cooling required

Here

and here