CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of Q9650 vs E8600 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Report a correction
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much better performance per watt 1.47 pt/W vs 1.1 pt/W Around 35% better performance per watt
Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 120.65W More than 35% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 47.3 $/year 2.1x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 113.62 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E8600

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E8600

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 3.33 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz vs 4.15 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 71.4 °C Almost the same
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.6 GHz vs 4.25 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Quad Q9650 vs Duo E8600

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core2 Quad Q9650
128,200 MB/s
Core2 Duo E8600
136,900 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Quad Q9650  vs
Duo E8600 
Clock speed 3 GHz 3.33 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 65W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 47.3 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 113.62 $/year
Performance per watt 1.47 pt/W 1.1 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 120.65W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz

details

Core2 Quad Q9650  vs
Duo E8600 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 12 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 45 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 410,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 10
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 71.4°C Unknown - 72.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.15 GHz 4.61 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.25 GHz 4.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.15 GHz 4.61 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E8600
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 2 comments.
Must I consider the periods- Architecture 775 was very special. As it has given much to today's architecture. Ex: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz 8MB Cache. Today, many things have changed the "nanometers" for example. At that exact time of 775 I think the difference was applicable for the game dual core es: 3000 mhz / 2 for multi multi thread work quad core es: 3000 / 4. The total amount of mhz should be divided by unbroken core . For the multi thread you need a few expects see photoshop and video editing applications. However, towards the end of the 775 era the q9650 was a good compromise. Even though I would have preferred the E8600 .... Without overclocking
Can anyone here use a plain language to tell me what the real difference between the two? when on what condition we use single core? and on what condition the computer use full two cores, or full 4 cores? Thank you.
comments powered by Disqus