Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 - DigitalVersus

Archive: Processors 2008-09 >

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450

Find the best price

Specifications
Socket	775
Number of cores	4
Clock rate	2.66 GHz
Cache	12 MB
Thermal Design Power	95 W
See all specifications

Technology	45 nm
Hide specifications

Régis Jehl
Updated: November 06, 2008 - Test date: October 27, 2008

Quad-Core from Intel

Intel updated its Core 2 Quad line of processors by adding the Q9050 series in March 2008. This model, the Q9450 (2.66 GHz) was joined by the Q9550 (2.83 GHz) as part of the initial offering; the Q9650 (3 GHz) followed in August 2008.

Rather than boosting clock speeds from one series to the next, this line of processors has twice the cache of its predecessors in the Q9000 line, which were, at 6 MB, an improvement on the Q8000's 4 MB.

All three of the manufacturer's quad-core collections fit 775 sockets, and like the Q9000 series, these models are engineered at 45 nm, giving them a TDP of 95 W.

When we tested them out, we fouind the 2.66 GHz Core 2 Quad 9450 to be around 6% less powerful than the top of the range 3 GHz, despite their specifications suggesting that this difference should be closer to 13%.

It's easier to understand what how small this distinction is in real terms if we consider the example of some of our lab tests for these two processors.

Compare the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 with the AMD Phenom X4 9750 and other CPUs in our
Product Face-Off

In Photoshop CS3, for instance, applying a complex filter to our test photo took 2 minutes 36 seconds on the Q9450 but just 2 minutes 18 seconds on the Q9650--a speed improvement of only 28 seconds.

This isn't surprising, because Adobe has optimized its software to work with quad-core processors like these.

On a dual-core chip, though, like the Core 2 Duo E8200, which also runs at 2.66 GHz, the same task took 5 minutes 5 seconds.

Performance uplifts like this are only possible if you're a regular user of software that can make the most of quad-core processors.

Otherwise, a faster dual-core core processor, like the E8600, would be a better option.

These improved speeds have one downside, which is the amount of power that's needed to run quad-core processors.

When our test PC was idling with a Q9450 inside, it sucked up 165 W, and 232 W when the CPU was running at full speed, compared to 165 W and 207 W respectively on the E8300, a dual-core processor.

Pluses

Shows off its four cores: excellent for all sorts of demanding applications

Good in non-optimized applications too

Minuses

High power consumption

All of Intel's Q9050 range are excellent processors for powerful applications like rendering 3D images and video editing. If you're not a regular user of such demanding software, a fast dual-core processor will likely serve your needs better.