Core 2 CPU Performance

I currently have an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, clock 3.000 GHz, 6M cache. I am contemplating buying an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300, clock 2.5 GHz, 6M cache. Both CPUs have a 1333 GHz bus speed. Many CPU performance sites rate the Quad as being considerably faster, despite the lower clock frequency. I would like your opinion on this. Thank you.

ARK | Compare Intel® Products

Neither has Hyper-Threading but comparing brut processing power;
4 x 2.5GHz = 10
2 x 3.0GHz = 6

The Quad Core gives a 67% increase in processing power. On the flip side, it's eight year old technology.

What is the PC used for?

What you really want is the Q9650 or the QX9650, if the motherboard supports it.

ARK | Intel® Coreâ„¢2 Quad Processor Q9650 (12M Cache, 3.00 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB)

ARK | Intel® Coreâ„¢2 Extreme Processor QX9650 (12M Cache, 3.00 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB)


You can find them on Ebay :)

I have done almost exactly what you propose, I went from a Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.1 GHz) to a Core 2 Quad X9650 (3.0 GHz).

If your most commonly used applications utilize only 1 or 2 threads, you will see an overall slowdown at the stock speed (2.5 GHz) of the Q9300.

However, if your application uses all available threads, you should see a speed increase.

I agree with AddRAM, go for the Q9650 or QX9650 (the only difference being that the Extreme version is unlocked for easy OverClocking) if your motherboard can handle it. Either are available on Ebay, but be aware that they still carry a bit of a premium price despite their age.

I ran the X9650 (overclocked to 3.8 GHz) for a year or so before succumbing to the siren song of the Haswell-E :)

In summary, it depends a lot on what applications you are running as to whether you'll realize a net increase in performance by going with the Q9300.

I would stay with the 3GHz duo core. I have a Q6600 @ 2.4GHz on this system and I am not impressed. At the end of the day it is a 2.4GHz duo core because most programs do not use all 4 cores.