Menu
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 & Q9450 in the test: The Ferrari among CPUs

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 & Q9450 in the test: The Ferrari among CPUs

Other

Power consumption

Since we already tested the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 were extremely impressed by the reduced power consumption, the new subjects had to put on large shoes.Due to its slightly higher TDP (136 compared to 130 watts) and the increased clock rate, the QX9770 should not have an easy time getting close to the values ​​of the QX9650.

At this point, we would like to emphasize once again that the manufacturer's TDP specification has nothing to do with everyday power consumption. Using the TDP, an OEM manufacturer can rather ensure that he is building a system that can dissipate the maximum heat output of the processor via the cooling system.

As usual, we measure the power consumption of our system of the entire PC . To do this, we measure the power consumption in the BIOS with the “Voltcraft Energy Check 3000”, with no application (idle) in Windows and under full load. In order to really use the computer to its full capacity under full load, you need a program that addresses all processor cores and demands the graphics card completely. In our case, the quad-core processor is fully used with four instances of Prime 95, while the two graphics tests 'Firefly Forest' & 'Canyon Flight' from 3DMark06 run in a loop.

Complete power consumption
  • BIOS:
    • Core 2 Quad Q9450
      182,4
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9650
      184,3
    • Core 2 Duo E6750
      186.5
    • Core 2 Duo E6420
      197.1
    • Core 2 Duo E6850
      200.6
    • Core 2 Duo E6600
      201,5
    • Core 2 Extreme X6800
      207,3
    • Core 2 Extreme QX6850
      213,1
    • Core 2 QuadQ6600
      215,4
    • Core 2 Quad Q6700
      220,6
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9770
      226, 4
  • Windows (idle):
    • Core 2 Duo E6750
      165.4
    • Core 2 Duo E6420
      169.4
    • Core 2 Duo E6850
      169.7
    • Core 2 Quad Q9450
      169.8
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9650
      171,1
    • Core 2 Duo E6600
      178,5
    • Core 2 Extreme X6800
      182,3
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9770
      193,2
    • Core 2 Quad Q6600
      194.0
    • Core 2 Quad Q67 00
      196,3
    • Core 2 Extreme QX6850
      197,3
  • Windows (full load):
    • Core 2 Duo E6420
      332
    • Core 2 Duo E6600
      357
    • Core 2 Duo E6750
      360
    • Core 2 Duo E6850
      381
    • Core 2 Extreme X6800
      383
    • Core 2 Quad Q9450
      401
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9650
      402
    • Core 2 Quad Q6600
      437
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9770
      444
    • Core 2 Quad Q6700
      464
    • Core 2 ExtremeQX6850
      487

To check, we carried out the test again under Windows Vista without loading the graphics card with Prime 95. To do this, all that was done was to start this tool after Windows started and activate the recording function with the power meter after a few minutes.

Power consumption
  • only CPU load with Prime 95:
    • Core 2 Duo E6420
      208
      Peak: 212
    • Core 2 Duo E6750
      216
      Peak: 220
    • Core 2 Duo E6600
      229
      Peak: 236
    • Core 2 Duo E6850
      230
      Peak: 235
    • Core 2 Extreme X6800
      241
      Peak: 245
    • Core 2 Quad Q9450
      256
      Peak: 264
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9650
      261
      Peak: 272
    • Core 2 Extreme QX9770
      297
      Peak: 302
    • Core 2 Quad Q6600
      310
      Peak: 316
    • Core 2 Quad Q6700
      321
      Peak: 327
    • Core 2 Extreme QX6850
      329
      Peak: 339

It is clear that the power consumption of the new QX9770 is higher than that of the previous Yorkfield model, since the default voltage of the Processor with 1.28750 volts compared to the QX9650 is higher. This picture is reflected, together with the clock speed increase and without the energy-saving measures, especially in the BIOS and under full load. On averagethe new 45 nm processor with 3.2 GHz needs almost 40 watts more than the first offshoot of the Penryn generation, but is still behind the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 with 3.0 GHz, which uses 65 nm. Further findings in this category: The X6800 with 2.93 GHz (at 1.3250 volts) is not a food contender with an average of 241 watts without loading the graphics card. And the G0 stepping with the dual-core processors is - as expected - less power-hungry; the older four-core devices are all clearly ahead in terms of power consumption.

Note: The power requirement of the Q9450 is only a provisional figure, as the CPU was simulated with a faster processor.

On the next page: Temperature

Comments