Intel's QX9770 quad-core to blow away competition in Q1

Want to see what AMD is up against come Q1? You're looking at it, the 3.2GHz, quad-core, QX9770 Core 2 Extreme processor from Intel. Like Intel's current headliner -- the QX9650 -- we're talking 45-nm Yorkfield class silicon here with 1600MHz front side bus and 12MB L2 cache. HotHardware got their hands on the proc a bit early and call it the fastest quad-core processor they've ever tested, "bar none." Generally speaking, they found it to be about 5 - 8% faster than the QX9650. As you can see from the graph up there, it easily smokes the $300 Phenom 9700 and the $350 2.6GHz Phenom 9900 (both due in Q1) likely won't fare much better. Just keep in mind that Intel's top-performer will cost you around $1,200 by the time it pops in Q1. Somehow, we don't think that's going dissuade any Crysis gamers out there.

[EngadgetFanBoi @ Nov 19th 2007 9:14AM]

This CPU would probably not affect playability on a game like Crysis by more than 1%. As long as you have at least a midrange processor (like a Q6600), you will be GPU bottlenecked. That is assuming you're gaming at a decent res (like 1600x1200 or higher).

[Harkonian @ Nov 19th 2007 11:22AM]

If you don't want to wade through the many ads and artificially rendered "pages" of the article, you can read it without such here:

http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=1055

[Coolbee8 @ Nov 19th 2007 9:16AM]

though AMD 9900 costs $350 and intel QX9770 will cost $999+, the extra frames are not really that necessary...

[MosquitoControl @ Nov 19th 2007 9:43AM]

Yes, but the 9900 is killed by cheaper Intels.


I can't fathom why anyone would go AMD right now. Other than thinking Intel = big, evil Microsoft and AMD = small, independant underdog.


Don't support brands. They're both equally evil. Go with the better chip for the buck, and right now those are absolutely coming from Intel.


Why is the 2.4 Duo getting slightly higher than the 2.4 Quad? I'm still not certain if I should go quad for my next system or go with the 3.0 Duo...

[Ross @ Nov 19th 2007 9:57AM]

I'd also like to know why the Q6600 doesn't benchmark as high as the E6600? Should I go with the E6600 for my new rig over the Q6600 or does the later have other advantages?

[rawhead @ Nov 19th 2007 11:55PM]

While I agree, it hurts me to see AMD doing so poorly recently. What if they fold? Intel will no longer have a viable opponent (unless you count VIA) in the mid-to-high end personal computer market, leading to complacency and stagnation.

[GregA @ Nov 19th 2007 12:59PM]

I'll Tell you why I went with AMD. I scored a free X2 3800 this morning in the trash! Woo hoo free computers FTW!

[Ayle @ Nov 19th 2007 5:25PM]

Where do you live?

[rv @ Nov 19th 2007 7:20PM]

I'm no cpu expert, but I believe the core 2 is getting higher marks than the quad core because the game isn't optimized for quad core performance, while it is for dual core.

[szamot @ Nov 19th 2007 9:58AM]

What a stupid waste of time this "comparison" is. Who runs anything in 800x600 low quality anymore, or better yet who cares about IT running at 800x600. Unless of course this test is aimed selling these chips to ATM makers. So, $1200 CPU running 800x600 that is supposed to mean something or impress me. Get lost.

[kureshii @ Nov 19th 2007 10:03AM]

It makes sense... this is a CPU test, not a GPU test. Running it at high resolution with all bells and whistles enabled will show you similar performance across the board since performance would become GPU-limited, and that would be really pointless.

[Steve @ Nov 19th 2007 12:41PM]

Kureshii, you have a valid point there but then why would you want to buy a processor that blow away competition at 800x600 resolution if at the end of day what's really limiting you is the GPU? Why not just buy a reasonably performing CPU and get best GPU out there instead for same or less price?

[Rex @ Nov 19th 2007 9:59AM]

Shouldn't that be 1600MHz for the front-side bus?

[Coolbee8 @ Nov 19th 2007 10:28AM]

What?
QX9770 fully loaded system rated @ 297W
QX9650 fully loaded system rated @ 206W
Q6600 fully loaded system rated @ 255W
AMD 9700 fully loaded system rated @ 307W

200 Mhz increase in core frequency mean nearly 50% greater power usage between 9770 and 9650 just for 1600 MHz? F**K that. Q9650 here I come.

Seriously what happened to AMD, they cannot even compete against an aging Q6600 on 65 nm scale?

[purezerg @ Nov 19th 2007 10:40AM]

that chart only uses 1 core. that is why dual or quad core made little difference. if that were the case, if I enable only core 1, my Q6600@450FSB aircooled will do better than QX9770. heck with 4 cores i already do 9x400FSB. (3.6Ghz)

[MosquitoControl @ Nov 19th 2007 12:23PM]

Duh! I should have realized that.

[KClaisse @ Nov 19th 2007 10:46AM]

It would appear that this is more of a MHz-based test, or at least one that takes advantage of only 2 cores. I say this because of how the Q6600 and the E6600 scored. Identical MHz, identical scores. Crysis doesn't appear to take advantage of more than 2 cores.

[Johnny5 @ Nov 19th 2007 10:51AM]

Why compare a $1200 chip to a $300 model? How many people would even pay the $900 price difference for an ENTIRE computer?

Good read on the new QX here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770/

[palehorse @ Nov 19th 2007 10:56AM]

Yet another blow to the gut for anyone who still had hopes AMD would do something, anything, impressive, any time soon.

For the first time in almost a decade, my bi-annual rebuild will be Intel-based! craziness!

I'll probably go with the Q9450 if it OC's well enough... :)

[Wolfticket @ Nov 19th 2007 12:07PM]

I was born an AMD man and I'll die an AMD man!

[spaceb @ Nov 19th 2007 10:30PM]

Hurra!

[jskrdude @ Nov 19th 2007 12:55PM]

Considering that people have overclocked Intel's quad-core 2.6 ghz to over 3.4 ghz, I would not spend over one grand on this processor.

Meh, for now, my AMD 64 x2 6000 is working just grand for me. Especially since I only paid little over 100 bucks for it. *that* is the best performance for your buck.

I'm in high school right now, I'll get a quad core later when I graduate college and start making money, lol.

[The Dude @ Nov 19th 2007 1:41PM]

I'd like to see benchmarks on UT3. Mark Rein was noted to say the more cores you have, the better the game will run, and so it should be the best test (for gamers) for how good these chips really are.

[Ashish @ Nov 19th 2007 2:10PM]

Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, said quite the same.

Rule number one of gaming hype : Never trust a CEO.

[Bamboo @ Nov 19th 2007 1:46PM]

I am really annoyed with Crysis at the moment. The devs and Intel have been promoting nonstop about how a quad core will be so much better.
I bought at q6600 a couple of months ago because I am working with a group on a mod for the game, thinking the quad would really help over the dual.
Nope.
The game never even uses but like 65% process power, and not all that evenly even. I hope a patch or something will fix things a bit.

[David Clark @ Nov 19th 2007 5:50PM]

Mmm.. Crysis is pretty and all, but try the new Call of Duty 4. That game smokes, graphically. I really think that team did a better job optimizing than the Crytek people.

[tyler @ Nov 19th 2007 3:17PM]

dual core has always been known to preform better in games.

that being said the phenoms still have the best bang for the buck, whos gonna spend 1k plus on a cpu alone? and as for the Q6600 is not a true quad core its more like dual dualies on the same chip

im sure if they did a benchmark on some sort of business or editing software the quads would punish the duals

[jason @ Nov 19th 2007 3:18PM]

Why is Intel comparing their product to dual core AMD chips and not quad core? If I were in the market for hardware like that I'd look for an equivalent comparison.

Dollar/performance I still like AMD better. I setup a lot of workstations with AMD chips and use AMD in my home machines.

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater @ Nov 19th 2007 3:53PM]

LOL only reason to get that chip is to do raytrace-based graphics or HPC/ripping/scientific work.. Do yourself a favor and put your moniez into the GPU, especially since high-rez LCD screens are so f--king cheap, 800x600 is for losers.

And AMD needs to get its act together to keep Intel honest.. If Intel dominates they'll get fat dumb and happy like they were before Athlon/Opteron, and consumers will be teh loosers...

[Silverfrog @ Nov 19th 2007 3:59PM]

No, I repeat no CPU will bottleneck an 8800 GTX or Ultra right now, let alone two of them in SLI. Every CPU iteration this year has shown an incremental increase in fps in gaming, given the same benchmarks and same GPUs. Check out toms hardware for the CPU chart if you want to see what I'm talking about. Bottom line is get as much as you can afford because no CPU is too much.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=421

[Philip Seyfi @ Dec 26th 2007 9:56AM]

You are comparing two totally different games... CoD4 is very very nice but it is a game like Tomb Raider Legend or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter... Great but linear gameplay with small environements allowing the devs to make some amazing graphic effects without using that much CPU/GPU power... Crysis, on the other hand, is liek Stalker, giantic maps, non linear gameplay - something that really pushes the PC Games forward... Crysis is amazing at Very High even compared to the linear CoD4

[Masur Ho @ Nov 19th 2007 8:27PM]

Intel is probably like... What Competition? Whos AMD?

[spaceb @ Nov 19th 2007 10:46PM]

I still support AMD and I'm not a fan boy. I have an Intel laptop which I love very much. What I don't really understand is why people say shit about AMD, we all should be thankful to have AMD making progress in the chip industry because we as consumers are the ones who benefit from the competition, we get lower prices, better technology, etc. I say cheers for AMD Phenom, keep it up AMD and keep it up Intel.

[Jibbajabba @ Nov 20th 2007 6:29PM]

I'll still hold out for a Phenom QuadFX at 2.6Ghz or faster, and a 3870x2 card for my next PC. CPU isn't the limiting factor in games, and I'm not going to flush more than $500 down the toilet for a CPU.

[maveric101 @ Nov 20th 2007 7:41PM]

while i would probably buy intel right now, i thank god AMD still does reasonably well. intel needs something to at least keep them on their toes.

[handlandj @ Nov 27th 2007 8:18PM]

two xeons of these, the qx9775 and dual 3870x2 and enermax galaxy 1000w and 8gb ddr3 1600 dram and 4tb hard drive space on some sort of mobo with 7.1 surround from abit fatality extreme, in the cooler master cosmos case, with an ibm t221-dg5 monitor an hdvd/bluray/dvd/cd/floppy combo triple drive config, 19-in-1 card reader...*drool*