Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S: A New 65W Quad-Core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 27, 2009 8:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
FarCry 2 Multithreaded Game Performance
FarCry 2 ships with the most impressive benchmark tool we’ve ever seen in a PC game. Part of this is due to the fact that Ubisoft actually tapped a number of hardware sites (AnandTech included) from around the world to aid in the planning for the benchmark.
For our purposes we ran the CPU benchmark included in the latest patch:
Power consumption is a bit more spread out thanks to this being more of a CPU test. The Q9550S continues to have the lowest average and peak power draw of any of the quad-core CPUs we’re looking at here today.
Energy efficiency is back to normal here as well; the test doesn’t run for a fixed time, it runs as quickly as it can. While this isn’t a realistic gaming scenario (just because you have a faster CPU it doesn’t mean you run any faster), it is useful for looking at how efficiently these CPUs handle the sort of code thrown at them by modern day game engines.
Despite the decrease in power consumption, it’s just not enough to make the Q9550S actually any more energy efficient. It’s a cooler running part, but the performance per watt ratio of the Core i7 remains untouched.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
UltraWide - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
why was a normal 95W TDP Q9550 not included???Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
I didn't actually have a 95W Q9550 available (Gary has the one we used in our Phenom II review). I provided the Q9650 and the Q9450 so you can get an idea of where the Q9550 would fall.Take care,
Anand
StraightPipe - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
I've got to agree with UltraWide.The news is Intel just came up with the S-line of procs.
But the test doesnt compare any S to non-S CPUs...
Isnt that what really matters? the perfomance and power consumption difference between the 95W and the new 65W is what I want to see.
anandtech02148 - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
finally nice to see the pick and choose Anandtech bench, need to take it out of beta, save me a trip to tomshardware.Calin - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Those processors are perfect as replacements in servers already validated for the 95W version of the same processor. While buying i7 would be better, maybe the i7 servers weren't validated (remember the 3 years of support for business-related hardware lines)danchen - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
looking at the numbers, it doesn't look like its worth the extra money.Its like buying an "environmentally friendly" car - high initial investment, takes many years to get an ROI.
perhaps if you're the type who runs your computers 24/7, it may actually save you some bills in the long run.
rpsgc - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Or... you could just undervolt your current CPU. Voilà.BTW, what is the default Vcore of these processors?
WillR - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
Depends on the model, but I assume you mean the likes of the Q9550. Those are 1.22V.http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... shows a few.
lucassp - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
"the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264)"firstly x264 is only an encoder, and doesn't have an encoder included. x264 is an Open Source implementation of the H.264 standard. it's not an alternative to it.
lucassp - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
sorry for the mistake, I meant to say it doesn't have a decoder included ;)