Q9450 Benchmark Results in Comanche (D901C)

I've started off collecting proper benchmarks for our Comanche (D901C) notebooks so people can see how different specs actually compare performance wise (so SLI and 4GB RAM etc will follow tomorrow hopefully ). We have a huge set of 571 chassis benchmarks that I can put up if people are interested. Also will hopefully get some COD4 and Crysis numbers up over the weekend for real world performance.

NOTE that all these are in Vista, 3DMarks will be higher in XP so with 1 GTX you'll probably get 800 points increase.


Both were done in Vista 32, 2GB OCZ 800MHZ RAM, 1 x 8800M GTX with 174.33:



I have put a % Performance Increase colum in there so it's easier to see what the actual difference is e.g. 37.21% means the Q9450s score was 37.21% or x1.37 better than the X6800, 126% means it was 126% or x2.26 better.

In wPrime the result is to be expected - it's core optimised so it should be roughly twice as fast (minus the 13% difference in core speed 2.93 - 2.6).

3DMark scores better mainly due to the extra cores however it wins the GPU intensive tests by a negligable margin

Most of the results are pretty obvious - CINEBENCH shows that the Q9450 storms ahead and makes full use of all 4 cores (well 3.63 x single core if you want to get picky!)

I have added 3 results from a 571RU-U chassis with same spec but X9000 running at stock 2.8GHz for comparison between the two chassis. If you compare it directly with the X6800 then the X9000 does very well, beating it clock for clock and matching it overall in performance. Not bad for a mobile chip (even if the X6800 is getting on a bit now ) It's worth pointing out that, though pulling 74W, the X6800 is quieter on load in a 901 chassis than an X9000 in a 571RU-U chassis.

 

Good ~

but you use Q9450

when your computer boot.....view 1 CPU but not view Core ?

normal view 4 core

maybe Bios cant view Q9450....

 

BIOS says CPU = 1 Processors Detected, Cores Per Processor = 4

 

Very impressive..
** Please post some Crysis numbers!

 

#3 good good ~

your bios ver is 13?

good good ....

may be i can OC my Q9100 ES <---- 12M L2 Cache...OMG

hahaha ~~~ OC to 400Mhz Fsb

 

Has Clevo officially approved the use of the Q9450 in the D901C ?
Or is this something you are doing off your own bat ?

 

Clevo has not approved use of Q9450, per discussion with reseller today. There are two other resellers Eurocom and PCMW that are building these with the Q9450.

 

It's not officially supported but we have a BETA BIOS which supports the CPU. I assume Clevo will "officially" support the Q9450/Q9550 when official BIOS is released.

The T9300/T9500 worked and were supported well before Clevo made an official announcement!

 

So it was just a BIOS update, not a motherboard revision ?

 

Yup, new BETA BIOS.

First SLI results in 3DMark, same config as above:

3DMark06 Score: 12,914

SM2.0: 4747
GT1: 41.731fps
GT2: 37.380fps

HDR/SM3.0: 6172
HDR1: 67.033
HDR2: 56.409

CPU Score: 3958 (Obviously these are the same as with 1 GTX)
CPU1: 1.286
CPU2: 1.949


Will have to put them in a table for easy comparison but total score is 2681 higher - pretty much what should be expected. Don't forget to add the 800 odd more for XP score. If you take an average of the fps in the 4 GPU tests the single card is 37.5fps and SLI is 50.6fps, which comes out at 36% increase.

 

Neil@Kobalt please upload this beta bios if its no problem for you

 

It's not been released to the public so sorry......


There's no benefit apart from 45nm support so you're better off sticking with 1.00.13 with a Q6700

 

Overclocking the q6600 to 3ghz 1333mhz beats all of those processors.
the only thing is heat. by maybe 10degrees. but my proccessor is a force to be reckoned with now.

I am just a tad behind the qx6800

 

Which means that it's time to change your avatar - perhaps something like thus:

 

Tht's really funny

 

Hi neil;
Whats ur mobo version.i am also thinking of getting a Q9450 some time later.

Thanks in advance.

 

Just a nit, but the data shows it's the other way around doesn't it?

 

He he yup you're right of course - "it" was meant to read "the X6800" which is why I put a "however" in front of it DOH

 

I`d like to see some mobile quad results in the future ..that`s be sweet

 

Neil, I wonder if you can compare the Q6700 with the Q9550... it would be great if you can do it...

 

We've got Q9550s here, will see if there are any Q6600/Q6700s free

 

Wouldn't be more fare to compare the q6700 with q9450 since they have the same frecquency? The q9550 runs at 2.83 GHZ.

 

No, I would like to see how much gain I would get after upgrading with the Q9550!!!

 

I would be really, really thankful if you do it... I need to see if the upgrading make any sense...

 

here are some tests with q9550. I am sure you can find here tests with 6700.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=236328&page=3

 

Yes I know, but I would like to see the test with a comparison... otherwise I can't really judge...

 

Yes. I know it is always easier to ask than to look around. Here there are some tests:
(look for deodot's post at middle of the page)

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=241711&highlight=q6700

I think you are old enough to compare them by yourself or if not you can see a 200 points increase for sinlge card for the q9450 and 500 with active SLI. This scores were for vista

I guess you could give a + for doing this for you.

PL

 

But they talk only about 3D marks... I was not asking about 3D scores since I never play a game, but about CPU performance in general for video editing and so on. Anyway, don't you worry... Thank you for your help.

 

ok. I appologize for my previous message . Maybe this will help even if the tests are done on desktops.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2521&cid=2&pg=3

PL