It's been a scant year since Intel released quad-core chips for the consumer desktop market, and now it's ready to update the lineup with the brand-new Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9650, internally code-named Yorkfield. The new chip is smaller, faster, consumes less power, and has more L2 cache than its quad-core predecessors in the Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX6xx0 series.

The Intel Core 2 QX9650 features four cores running at 3.0GHz on a 1333MHz front-side bus. The processor has two independent but shared 6MB L2 caches, giving the processor 12MB of L2 cache. The processor will be compatible with motherboards based on Intel's P35 and X38 chipsets.

The Intel Core 2 QX9650 is based on Intel's newest 45mn Penryn microarchitecture. The chip uses hafnium-based high-K dielectrics that allow for smaller gates (and, in turn, smaller transistors) that are more power efficient, faster, and help to lower leakage. Penryn also includes 47 new SSE4 instructions that help improve the performance of games, video encoding, and image processing.

Overall, performance scaled well for the QX9650. The new processor produced higher performance than our older Intel quad-core processors in all of the applications we tested. The Intel Core 2 QX9650 outperformed our other Extreme Processor, Intel Core 2 QX6800, by a decent amount in 3DMark06. The Intel Core 2 QX6700, a 2.66GHz quad-core processor, lagged behind the new chip by almost 20 percent. The QX9650 breezed by with another solid victory in Valve's particle benchmark. When we underclocked the QX9650 to the same speed as the QX6700, it still beat the older quad-core processor by a healthy margin.

Most single-threaded applications generally don't show performance gains with additional processing cores, but the QX9650 showed minor gains in both Oblivion and World in Conflict, most likely due to clock-speed differences and the new Penryn features.

We expect to see the Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9650 in stores at or near the traditional $999 Extreme Processor price point. Expect Intel to fill out its quad-core lineup with more affordable versions in the future.

Intel Core 2 QX9650 Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

3DMark06, CPU Score

Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 3.00GHz
4983
Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 2.66GHz
4422
Intel Core 2 QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
4182
Intel Core 2 X6800 @ 2.93GHz
2604

Valve Particle Benchmark

Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 3.00GHz
115
Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 2.66GHz
101
Intel Core 2 QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
86
Intel Core 2 X6800 @ 2.93GHz
50

Oblivion, 1600x1200, Ultra Quality

Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 3.00GHz
67
Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 2.66GHz
61
Intel Core 2 QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
54
Intel Core 2 X6800 @ 2.93GHz
62

World in Conflict, 1600x1200, High Quality

Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 3.00GHz
45
Intel Core 2 QX9650 @ 2.66GHz
45
Intel Core 2 QX6700 @ 2.66GHz
44
Intel Core 2 X6800 @ 2.93GHz
43
System Setup: Intel Core 2 QX9650, Intel Core 2 QX6700, Intel Core 2 X6800, Asus P5K-SE, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2), 750GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows XP Professional SP2. Graphics Card: GeForce 8800 GTX, Nvidia ForceWare 163.75

27 Comments

  • Kengthegoz

    Posted Mar 23, 2008 1:50 am PT

    Core 2 X money hog!!!! i can run every game in stable frame rate with my super high - end P4 631 3.2 Ghz, I don't need such a these thing!!! if you have money buy a mainframe!

  • micknator

    Posted Jan 24, 2008 5:51 am PT

    A lot of money for a lot of processing power. Defo worth the money.

  • TiberiumMember

    Posted Jan 5, 2008 2:12 am PT

    my god that's a lot for a processor maybe you will spend a lot of money on games playing quality but
    this is CRAZYY!!

  • boeing777400

    Posted Dec 2, 2007 10:47 am PT

    i dont think any programs use quad cores rite now

  • MrGordons

    Posted Nov 28, 2007 10:24 am PT

    At this price it so isnt worth it im getting a new nvidia motherboard ,2 gigs of gamers ram,new power supply AND an intel q6600 quad core processor for the same price with a bit to spare and i think that will last me until everyones using octo core or 16 core CPU's

  • durjoy360

    Posted Nov 14, 2007 12:50 pm PT

    For only a processor!!!
    Better buy a ps3 or xbox360 or both.

  • unreal_ll417

    Posted Nov 8, 2007 12:19 pm PT

    I like AMD better there 6400 + is only 200$

  • Aragorn823

    Posted Nov 8, 2007 7:16 am PT

    Sounds powerful but too expensive to actually buy at the moment. By the way, this is $999 AUS right? I'll wait till CPU's cost less than half this price first thanks!

  • evilmonkey_clou

    Posted Nov 7, 2007 5:52 pm PT

    Maybe if I sell my soul, i might have enough money to buy this....
    But seriously, who has this kind of money to spend on a processor? You could buy a decent computer with that money, or at least a couple of graphics cards.... or about 4 gigs of low latency ram at newegg.

  • hashamn

    Posted Nov 5, 2007 10:43 am PT

    we don even need dat much power my e4400 will do nicely when i overclock it to 3.47 Ghz next year (don wanna void warranty dis year) or imight even go up to 4.00 with water cooling anyway im nt gettin quad core anytime soon heck i still have to buy me an 8800gt(awesome card fr a good price)

  • bodigalhun

    Posted Nov 5, 2007 9:51 am PT

    1000 bucks on a single CPU. thats way out of the line. they just keep making ridiculous models of duos and quads with some minor upgrades, fixes, changes and the price margin still the same 4 figures. i am just hoping AMD is working to counter part this monopoly. they should better get outwith some quads.

  • Junior19922003

    Posted Nov 4, 2007 8:01 pm PT

    EXPENSIVE I TELL YA!!!!!! i can't buy it T-T

  • HaRiZ420

    Posted Nov 4, 2007 10:59 am PT

    Wow, but $1000.00 is way too much for a CPU.

  • DADA_007

    Posted Nov 2, 2007 6:22 am PT

    What the hell :@ Intel are made ? why are they releasing so much cpu again and again ?

  • speedy2295

    Posted Nov 1, 2007 6:15 pm PT

    i wish i had the money to buy it

  • Brainkiller05

    Posted Nov 1, 2007 8:52 am PT

    I wont be getting one

  • slickchris7777

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 10:25 pm PT

    Very nice, I hope AMD has something to counter this.

  • mikerotch4u

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 10:05 pm PT

    Why are they even comparing this thing to the X6800 in benchmarking and gaming tests? Its not even a quad core like the others. The processor numbers look inconsistant with the performance numbers on a few of the charts too...

    For your reading enjoyment...
    http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2xe/specifications.htm

  • kelkimble2k4

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 9:10 pm PT

    Too expensive.......Will wait till next year for an upgrade.

  • tjdeep_2007

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 8:39 pm PT

    expensive...........

  • Tremere1

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 5:16 pm PT

    This is pretty cool, but too expensive for my blood.

  • KratosAurion7

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 4:59 pm PT

    Pretty neat stuff, except for the price tag. Still, who has 1k$ to waste on a processor? I got a dual-core 3.0 GHz and im not sure that if I bought that processor I would have 999$ worth of speed augmentation.

  • el_carl

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 4:43 pm PT

    abbnormmal, thats the story with every new generation of processors. Start out with the high end at $1000 and work down.

  • abbnormmal

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 3:42 pm PT

    Good news for those rich enough to spend a mortgage payment on a new processor. For most of us, report this story again in a year when it only costs a car payment.

  • couly

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 2:16 pm PT

    my Q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz will do nicely for another year

  • Punk-Master

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 1:45 pm PT

    A dream for my case....

  • ChocoKat

    Posted Oct 31, 2007 1:39 pm PT

    Interesting.

advertisement

Intel Core 2 QX9650 Extreme Processor Hands-On Preview

Intel's quad-core QX9650 has arrived. Find out how the newest Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor performs.

Tags