System testing for Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Q9550

[Fanishwar]

By the end of last year I heard (so called rumors) circulating since long time, there are three quad-core processors from Intel with a lowered to 65 watts TDP really. So far, low-power processors have four cores, the server market, and therefore reserved for the Xeon CPUs, but with the first three cuttings Core 2 Quad Q8200s, Q9400s and Q9550s also wants Intel to show in the desktop segment some green flag - for power saving and thus the environmental is already "in". I am just anticipating that some members over there must have some knowledge about the system testing for the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 and Q9550. I am very much eager to know about the consequences. If anyone over there knows about it, please help me by posting some useful information over here.

[Wannabe]

We had our existing test system to the well-deserved retirement sent. It had seen in the last year a total of 36 processors, 21 of them from Intel, 15 of AMD. Since there have been over the months in which we undergo such a test system does not change, many changes in the market, it was not only given the new processor generation time for a change. Of course, an entire generation provides for the replacement of the entire system to always best, so we postponed the plans from the former early summer to autumn. We have resorted to many suggestions from readers, we have received in recent months. One of the largest and most often attached to criticism was certainly the older Antec PSU with 480 watts. This is sent in a well-earned retirement and replaced with a brand new power supply from Cooler Master. This represents an efficiency of 89 percent at a very high occupancy rate of 50 percent, but even under low load (20%) and full load (100%) may also act on UCP Power Supply with 87 respectively 85 percent more than see. For our test, we use the smallest version with 700 watts, as stronger power supplies fall, especially under light load efficiency in some cases significantly.

[Joko]

Another important point is the new graphics card. After we complete last year not just low-power ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT in action had it, we rely on Nvidia's first (relatively low-power) 55-nm solution for high-end segment, the GeForce 9800 GTX +. In particular, the significantly lower absorption line, even from competitors in the form of the ATI HD 4850 and the consistently faster performance were important reasons for the selection. All other eligible models (HD 4870, GTX 260, GTX 280) certainly provide a higher performance, but only at disproportionate increase in power consumption. To meet the new triple channel RAM just to be on the software side was almost imperative of transitioning to Windows Vista 64-bit version. Even this step we took the new test system, so that henceforth, the three slots on the X58 boards with two gigabytes are equipped - all the other Intel boards rely on the dual-channel mode on two of these modules.

[Rixwel]

The difference of 4 to 6 GB of course on paper there is, in benchmarks but not realizing quasi. We also believe that such situations are likely to be in the near future, the most common variants or in the form of DDR2 memory with the old-established Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad already are. Therefore, all (older) AMD processors also come with a potent DDR2 memory, therefore, the maximum 1,066 MHz makes. Since so far only the Phenom and Athlon benefit from this memory, the older models work with a lower clock, but with better timing. For Socket AM3 us is parallel to a circuit board from Asus is available, which is based on the 790FX and the SB750. Furthermore, it is also a quasi-identical spin for the socket AM2, which is logical to DDR2.

[Zeverto]

In addition to the newly designed from the ground test system, we have also carried the benchmark course an update. Still, some theoretical tests of the party, as they usually are one step further than any real application. There are new features that have found a place in processors, first tested in their performance. Since these theoretical tests use the user on the PC but not much, we are also many practical applications for help. These are now the main variety of multimedia applications, but also everyday things like packaging of files. Rounding out the test a few games where we were looking for a selection of games with built-in benchmark capability, and play out, which means Fraps not only the average frames per second, but the minima and maxima were determined. As is customary in the past, each benchmark is performed five times to meet with any outliers in performance can.

[Sydney_7]

As is customary in the past, each benchmark is performed five times to meet with any outliers in performance can.

This happens in almost all applications, unfortunately, more often than expected, both the negative and the positive direction. The average of the five tests (excluding extreme outliers) is then transferred to the individual diagrams. In games will make use of the resolution of 1,280 x 1,024 pixels, since at higher resolutions almost only the graphics card plays a role in lower resolutions but have no relation to reality. In general, we test it, if not further described, with the highest detail. The values of AA / AF can vary from game to game, however, the different setups are a small simulation of what may now change with each new game. All tested processors have to prove with the graphics card these tests that they can cope well with a few quality-enhancing features as well as a maximum.

[Galbraith]

The well-known benchmark series by Futuremark has admittedly been published in the Vantage version, but "3DMark06" still enjoys great popularity. Of the six test scenes four sequences to measure the performance of the graphics card and show a spectacular graphics, which still looks sometimes even their own kind. To achieve that, the Finns use modern 3D technology, so not only massively the shader model is used 3.0 - extremely complex textures, spectacular particle effects, complex shadows calculations and as a further highlight "High Dynamic Range Rendering" - be - in short HDRR used. This Futuremark uses FP16 HDR, which provides a very high image quality, but is also expensive to compute.

[Christina 80]

After the veteran 3DMark06 a few years under his belt and is therefore not only the graphics become a little dusty but looks beyond the CPU limit for fast graphics card is more noticeable, it was high time for a successor. The Finnish company Futuremark has accordingly after a long wait, the 3DMark Vantage on the market that has been programmed in advance for the Direct3D 10 API. Graphically, the two games tests offer accordingly much for the eye, which can share, especially the second test highlights. With FP16 HDR, Depth of Field, Parallax Occlusion Mapping, a physical simulation on the GPU, different shader effects and much more of the 3DMark Vantage 3D hardware brings problems to the benefit limit. The popular, originating from Germany Maxon Cinema4D is represented in our benchmark course in the form of Cinebench R10. The software uses raytracing to up to 16 processors, and thus benefits from all currently on the market desktop processors from AMD or Intel.

[Muwafaq]

No matter whether it's motherboard, memory, hard drive, peripherals, expansion cards, processor, network interfaces, BIOS, Windows or DirectX is, SiSoft Sandra has extensive answers. For much of the hardware in the PC, there are also benchmark tests that can test the PC to its performance in comparison with some reference computers. All these values are almost purely theoretical and have little relation to practice, however, processors can compare well in their theoretical possibilities. Also offer programs like Sandra usually much more likely to test possibilities, new built-in features of processors before they are integrated in months or years in real programs. We chose from the extensive repertoire for tests arithmetic, multimedia and cryptography, as well as the memory bandwidth, memory latency and cache and memory access.

[Alondra]

For several years is to SuperPi tests such as the Amen in church. Unfortunately, the test is due to his advanced age for current processors only very limited significance, which is why he is with us in the future, only to put on display, but not in the valuation flows. As an alternative, we offer wPrime and MaxxPi ². MaxxPi ² is something new and more accurate, but is still very close to om original Super Pi, so the results in our tests also play only a minor role. wPrime in version 2.00 is released in late September 2008 and in our view provides the best results, since all cores or threads on Windows are fully utilized and exploited. A little over two years after the introduction of the PCMark05, the Futuremark benchmark for assessing the performance of a computer in many different application scenarios is that the Finnish manufacturer PCMark07, PCMark Vantage called before.