Kinda dissapointed with my Q9450

G

grimpy

n00b
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
46
Used to have a E8400 running at 4GHz,my Q9450 is running at 3.4GHz.

I took note of the time it took me to convert a 700mb avi to a dvd iso in nero7 and that was 21m 54s.

With my Q9450 on the same setup it took me 18m 30s so not much of a difference,i thought it would of been much faster?
 
Your E8400 was running at 4Ghz and producing a score of 21m / 54s.
Your Q9450 is running at 3.4Ghz and produced a score of 18m / 30s and is 600MHZ slower! That is pretty flipping good! a 3.24m/s difference with a 600MHZ speed hit, fucking fantastic results if you as me, what were you expecting? An instant convert?
 
It has been noted around here that the E8400 is probably the best processor around for single core or dual core optimized programs.

If all you do is play videogames, yes it was a downgrade to go to the quad, especially when you knew your E8400 did 4.0ghz.

If you do a lot of conversions and use programs that are written for 2+cores, the quad will pull ahead as you saw.

We all knew the downfall of the q9450 was the lower multiplier. It was also stated that the Q9450 was what 2-11% faster clock for clock than the q6600, but if you had a q6600 that pushed 3.8ghz it would be a downgrade to a q9450 unless you could hit 3.6ghz with the 9450.

As stated, what were you expecting?

If you were expecting ~ half the e8400 time for the conversion, I could understand the rant if the q9450 was at 4.0ghz.

But we all know about hardware that 2x the physical items doesnt equal 2x the performance. As much as we want SLI to exactly double FPS we don't have it.

Maybe this is how it will always be, maybe it's that the drivers still are no where near to perfect.
 
Maybe its just nero that is the problem and it cant fully utilise the quad.

Using the E8400 both cores were always 100% maxed out but ive just noticed using the quad that the 4 cores usually fluctuate between 70-80% and never hit 100%.
 
grimpy said:
Maybe its just nero that is the problem and it cant fully utilise the quad.

Using the E8400 both cores were always 100% maxed out but ive just noticed using the quad that the 4 cores usually fluctuate between 70-80% and never hit 100%.
Click to expand...

Could very well be that it isn't taking full advantage of the processor. I still think you got a good chip, a 3 1/2 minute save with lower clock speeds? Pretty darn sexy.

What are you doing with your E8400?
 
Grimpy,

I too came from a [email protected] and then to a [email protected]. At first I was disappointed, but once I started encoding using Xvid, Divx 6.8 and x264, I immediately saw huge gains.

You really have to find software that will let you set the number of threads. Some software is multi-threaded. Sorry to say that currently Quad Cores are really only excelling at video encoding. Not much else. (Before I get flamed, note that I used the word "Excelling")

I miss my 400MHz and DDR1000, I'm at DDR900. If I did a blindfold test playing games between the two on the same setup, I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Did you keep your E8400? I'm keeping mine, and probably going to put my Quad in a mATX encoding box or something. At least now I know what Quad is good for, as it is my first and I probably would've been curious.
 
Thanks for the replys,dont have the E8400 anymore sold it to a friend.
 
wow... never thought someone would rather have a dual at 4.0 than a quad at 3.6

I don't understand that logic...
 
toddw said:
wow... never thought someone would rather have a dual at 4.0 than a quad at 3.6

I don't understand that logic...
Click to expand...

I would. I have 0 programs that would utilize four cores. I primarily game, and do some light photoshopping. A quad would be a waste, and a 4ghz dual core would be alot faster.
 
I doubt you would notice a difference between a dual at 4 and a quad at 3.4 in games as the system would most likely be GPU bottlenecked at that point.

I would not have updated an e8400 just to a Q9450 though. Just not enough umph for the money spent. Unless the upgrade was a wash after selling the e8400.

Don
 
DonDon said:
I doubt you would notice a difference between a dual at 4 and a quad at 3.4 in games as the system would most likely be GPU bottlenecked at that point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to say that; unless you like playing your games at 1024x768 at low detail, although the E8400 clocks higher, it's not likely to actually make a noticeable difference in games.
 
graysky said:
I don't think that nero is using all your cores dude... have a look at the results in my x264 hd benchmark and look up an e8400 and a qxxxx and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Cant seem to get this benchmark to run,ive downloaded and installed AviSynth and the Benchmark.

When i load the x264_benchmark-720p.bat batch file and enter a name then enter the box just goes from my screen and nothing happens?
 
@grimpy - hmm... that shouldn't happen, can you launch the batch file from a command prompt window so you can see the output?

i.e.

Start menu>run then try cmd and hit ok

Enter the directory where you unrared the benchmark and type x264_benchmark-720p

Paste the output of that; the benchmark has been pretty bullet proof and tested on hundreds of systems.
 
I think most experienced enthusiasts were disappointed with the 9450. Especially after all the hype of 45m. When you run a 9450 and Q6600 side by side in identical boxes and they both max out at appx 60c under prime, now that's a notable disappointment.

I really believe that we're all just getting used to being disappointed and we're just accepting it. This is so similar to the 8800gtx to the 9800gtx, there's just not that much difference nowadays. Hopefully the old days aren't completely gone, when something new comes out and just blows away the old tech. But hey, people are gonna buy it no matter what, so it probably doesn't matter to the manufacturer.



Intel boss: Did those fucking idiots fall for the 45nm and SSE 4 crap?
Intel dude: Yes sir, they're selling like hotcakes, can't keep them in stock.
Intel boss: Well, keep changing names of stuff, let's try SSE5 or maybe SSE4.1 next time.
Intel dude: Sir, I recommend we try "SSEX9" next time. People like X's, or GT's, and high numbers.
Intel boss: Well, whatever sells the most. Limit production too so we can rape the idiots harder, less=more for us.
Intel dude: lolzorz, yes sir!
Intel boss: One more thing, what about the E8500? Are they buying this thing? Are they really paying $100 more for a multi of .5 when it doesn't cost us a single cent to add that in?
Intel dude: omgsauzegravysorz, yes sir, worked like a champ.
Intel boss: stfu and get back to work now, I'm through with you and your childish "lol" crap!
 
I was running the benchmark from within winrar that was the problem once i extracted the files into its own folder it ran fine,my mistake.

Looking at the results from the E8400 in the list that was running just over 4GHz i`m pleased with my results.

---------- RUN1PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 69.66 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 69.40 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 69.45 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS1.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 68.98 fps, 3905.42 kb/s

---------- RUN1PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 19.96 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN2PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 19.84 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN3PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 19.96 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

---------- RUN4PASS2.LOG
encoded 1442 frames, 19.94 fps, 3952.85 kb/s

2cp6kgh.jpg
 
For what I did for the most part is game, surf and listen to tunes so going from a QX9650 that @ 4ghz was around 70c to an E8500 at 4ghz with mid 50'c for load temps was definitely nice.
 
@grim - there ya go. If you'll give me your system specs I'll put your results in the table. The specs I need are listed on the main page you used to download the benchmark.
 
N3mi5is said:
I would. I have 0 programs that would utilize four cores. I primarily game, and do some light photoshopping. A quad would be a waste, and a 4ghz dual core would be alot faster.
Click to expand...

400 MHz was "a lot" in 1999. It's not a lot in 2008 and definitely not a lot when you're comparing 3600 to 4000.




 
graysky said:
@grim - there ya go. If you'll give me your system specs I'll put your results in the table. The specs I need are listed on the main page you used to download the benchmark.
Click to expand...

Q9450
8 x 425 - 3.40
X38
DDR2 5 5 5 15
Vista x64
 
baleedit said:
Intel boss: Did those fucking idiots fall for the 45nm and SSE 4 crap?
Intel dude: Yes sir, they're selling like hotcakes, can't keep them in stock.
Intel boss: Well, keep changing names of stuff, let's try SSE5 or maybe SSE4.1 next time.
Intel dude: Sir, I recommend we try "SSEX9" next time. People like X's, or GT's, and high numbers.
Intel boss: Well, whatever sells the most. Limit production too so we can rape the idiots harder, less=more for us.
Intel dude: lolzorz, yes sir!
Intel boss: One more thing, what about the E8500? Are they buying this thing? Are they really paying $100 more for a multi of .5 when it doesn't cost us a single cent to add that in?
Intel dude: omgsauzegravysorz, yes sir, worked like a champ.
Intel boss: stfu and get back to work now, I'm through with you and your childish "lol" crap!
Click to expand...

absolutelo LOLLLL ! :D:D
 
baleedit said:
I think most experienced enthusiasts were disappointed with the 9450. Especially after all the hype of 45m. When you run a 9450 and Q6600 side by side in identical boxes and they both max out at appx 60c under prime, now that's a notable disappointment.

I really believe that we're all just getting used to being disappointed and we're just accepting it. This is so similar to the 8800gtx to the 9800gtx, there's just not that much difference nowadays. Hopefully the old days aren't completely gone, when something new comes out and just blows away the old tech. But hey, people are gonna buy it no matter what, so it probably doesn't matter to the manufacturer.



Intel boss: Did those fucking idiots fall for the 45nm and SSE 4 crap?
Intel dude: Yes sir, they're selling like hotcakes, can't keep them in stock.
Intel boss: Well, keep changing names of stuff, let's try SSE5 or maybe SSE4.1 next time.
Intel dude: Sir, I recommend we try "SSEX9" next time. People like X's, or GT's, and high numbers.
Intel boss: Well, whatever sells the most. Limit production too so we can rape the idiots harder, less=more for us.
Intel dude: lolzorz, yes sir!
Intel boss: One more thing, what about the E8500? Are they buying this thing? Are they really paying $100 more for a multi of .5 when it doesn't cost us a single cent to add that in?
Intel dude: omgsauzegravysorz, yes sir, worked like a champ.
Intel boss: stfu and get back to work now, I'm through with you and your childish "lol" crap!
Click to expand...

lol
 
I have to ask, where are you guys getting E8500's from. I can't seem to find any place online that has them in stock.
 
Savoy said:
I have to ask, where are you guys getting E8500's from. I can't seem to find any place online that has them in stock.
Click to expand...

They're are not available yet in the US. Period. If somebody bought them here, they are Engineering Samples.
 
RangerSVT said:
Your E8400 was running at 4Ghz and producing a score of 21m / 54s.
Your Q9450 is running at 3.4Ghz and produced a score of 18m / 30s and is 600MHZ slower! That is pretty flipping good! a 3.24m/s difference with a 600MHZ speed hit, fucking fantastic results if you as me, what were you expecting? An instant convert?
Click to expand...

+1 I'm not understanding the logic here either.

As far as Nero and quad core support, in my experience, it's a bit flakey. I've got Nero 7 and certain video's I encode using Nero Vision utilize all 4 cores and it finishes VERY fast while other video's only use 2 cores.

In this case it certainly appers that Nero is using at the very least, more than two full cores since you got a better time while running a lower clock speed. Again, not sure what exactly you were expecting.
 
Yes i`m running at a lower clock speed but overall i have much more cpu power as my E8400 had 2 x 4GHz cores giving 8GHz and the Q9450 has 4 x 3.4GHz giving 13.6GHz.

So for an extra 5.6GHz of cpu power i thought i would of gained more than 3.5 mins off the time it took.
 
It doesn't quite work like that. You can't add up the individual clock speed and say you have that many MHz, 2x4GHz does not give you 8GHz, it gives you 2x4GHz.

A performance gain of over 20% while having a 15% lower clock speed is pretty darn good.
 
RamonGTP said:
It doesn't quite work like that. You can't add up the individual clock speed and say you have that many MHz, 2x4GHz does not give you 8GHz, it gives you 2x4GHz.

A performance gain of over 20% while having a 15% lower clock speed is pretty darn good.
Click to expand...

Actually with x264 you can. They did a test of going from 2 cores to 4 cores, and the encode time was cut in half. So just quit using nero video and use handbrake! ;)
 
baleedit said:
I think most experienced enthusiasts were disappointed with the 9450. Especially after all the hype of 45m. When you run a 9450 and Q6600 side by side in identical boxes and they both max out at appx 60c under prime, now that's a notable disappointment.

I really believe that we're all just getting used to being disappointed and we're just accepting it. This is so similar to the 8800gtx to the 9800gtx, there's just not that much difference nowadays. Hopefully the old days aren't completely gone, when something new comes out and just blows away the old tech. But hey, people are gonna buy it no matter what, so it probably doesn't matter to the manufacturer.

Intel boss: Did those fucking idiots fall for the 45nm and SSE 4 crap?
Intel dude: Yes sir, they're selling like hotcakes, can't keep them in stock.
Intel boss: Well, keep changing names of stuff, let's try SSE5 or maybe SSE4.1 next time.
Intel dude: Sir, I recommend we try "SSEX9" next time. People like X's, or GT's, and high numbers.
Intel boss: Well, whatever sells the most. Limit production too so we can rape the idiots harder, less=more for us.
Intel dude: lolzorz, yes sir!
Intel boss: One more thing, what about the E8500? Are they buying this thing? Are they really paying $100 more for a multi of .5 when it doesn't cost us a single cent to add that in?
Intel dude: omgsauzegravysorz, yes sir, worked like a champ.
Intel boss: stfu and get back to work now, I'm through with you and your childish "lol" crap!
Click to expand...

LOL :D Although to be honest, I'm not disappointed with the real Penryn. I ordered my Thinkpad with a T8100 and it's everything I could hope for in a mobile CPU: Super cool, blazing fast. Thanks to SSE4, the T8100 @ 1.2 puts up very nice encoding numbers that rival my E6700 @ 3.4. I'm impressed. The desktop CPU's are a letdown though.

doormat said:
Actually with x264 you can. They did a test of going from 2 cores to 4 cores, and the encode time was cut in half. So just quit using nero video and use handbrake! ;)
Click to expand...

I've tried handbrake and never got more than 53% utilization while ripping into Mpeg4... quite annoying when I got the quad to encode.
 
N3mi5is said:
I would. I have 0 programs that would utilize four cores. I primarily game, and do some light photoshopping. A quad would be a waste, and a 4ghz dual core would be alot faster.
Click to expand...

What people don't understand is that with a quad core your overall computing exp is better. You know the occassional slowdowns you hit on a dual core when encoding video, or running a game alt-tabbed out and trying to surf the web, or any number of other minor slowdowns? THOSE ARE NOT THERE AT ALL ON A QUAD CORE. I'VE YET TO EVER "FEEL" MY QUAD CORE SLOWDOWN.

Dual cores are pretty easy to "feel" a slowdown with.
 
Archaea said:
What people don't understand is that with a quad core your overall computing exp is better. You know the occassional slowdowns you hit on a dual core when encoding video, or running a game alt-tabbed out and trying to surf the web, or any number of other minor slowdowns? THOSE ARE NOT THERE AT ALL ON A QUAD CORE. I'VE YET TO EVER "FEEL" MY QUAD CORE SLOWDOWN.

Dual cores are pretty easy to "feel" a slowdown with.
Click to expand...

I second that. I just moved over to a x3350 from the E8400. At first, I missed the 4.0GHz, but multitasking is much better on a quad. There is a noticeable difference between 4.0GHz and 3.6Ghz in gaming, but yesterday I figured that I'd try to load the processor. This is what I did:

I have my X3350 at 3.6GHz, and at that speed, I was able to encode H264 from DVD on DVDfab (Average 75fps.), Encode another Xvid movie from another DVD on PQDVD Pocket DVD Studio (Average 60fps.), while playing Assassin's Creed Beta at 1900x1200 at the same time! This is something that I'm sure wouldn't be possible on on the E8400. Granted, Assassin's Creed is a real resource hog, and wasn't perfectly smooth, but I'm willing to bet that it was running 30-50fps during the whole time

This is with 4GB ram, winXP (it's only 3.25GB) a 3 drive raid-0 (16k clusters -36GB raptor) setup, for my OS, games, and video encode output. My 2 cents, you probably have to pair these quads with a good raid setup. I can imagine the whole process above choking on a single drive setup.
 
I finally got my Q9450. And I also fall into the disappointed category. Though I'm not sure where to lay blame at this point.

I can only get it to 3GHz. I'm inclined to blame my P965 - I have the BIOS set to 1.3V, CPUZ shows 1.26V at idle, and under P95 vDroop takes over and my voltage falls to 1.18V. Thats a 0.08V droop. I'm thinking the VRMs on this P5B-E suck and cant handle it. Or perhaps its a BIOS thing, since even when I set my CPU voltage to "Auto" and leave the chip at stock speeds, it sends 1.225V to the CPU even though the VID is 1.125.

I'll be inclined to wait for the next BIOS update from ASUS for my board to support the Q9450 C1 stepping. If the board gets its act together and works properly and OCs fine then I'll be happy. Otherwise, the P45 mobos cant get here quick enough.

On the plus side, my Handbrake encodes are still way faster than before....
 
doormat said:
I finally got my Q9450. And I also fall into the disappointed category. Though I'm not sure where to lay blame at this point.

I can only get it to 3GHz. I'm inclined to blame my P965 - I have the BIOS set to 1.3V, CPUZ shows 1.26V at idle, and under P95 vDroop takes over and my voltage falls to 1.18V. Thats a 0.08V droop. I'm thinking the VRMs on this P5B-E suck and cant handle it. Or perhaps its a BIOS thing, since even when I set my CPU voltage to "Auto" and leave the chip at stock speeds, it sends 1.225V to the CPU even though the VID is 1.125.

I'll be inclined to wait for the next BIOS update from ASUS for my board to support the Q9450 C1 stepping. If the board gets its act together and works properly and OCs fine then I'll be happy. Otherwise, the P45 mobos cant get here quick enough.

On the plus side, my Handbrake encodes are still way faster than before....
Click to expand...

I'd check that droop! Don't feed too much into that chip to get it to OC higher. 1.3 got me up to 3.6GHz, so do a droop mod before you raise the volts! Yes, Handbrake is much faster now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top