Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650

Written by Tim Smalley & Richard Swinburne

October 29, 2007 | 05:16

Tags: #2 #45nm #64-bit #9650 #core #cpu #desktop #extreme #performance #processor #quad #quad-core #qx9650 #review #wolfdale #x86-64 #yorkfield

Companies: #intel

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition

Publisher: Capcom

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Snow)

1280x960 0xAA 0xAF, Maximum Quality, DX10

  • Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • 61.7
  • 61.7
  • 61.7
  • 61.4
  • 61.3
  • 60.7
  • 60.5
  • 59.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Average Frames Per Second - higher is better

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Snow)

1920x1200 0xAA 0xAF, Maximum Quality, DX10

  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • 37.5
  • 37.4
  • 37.2
  • 37.1
  • 36.8
  • 36.7
  • 36.6
  • 36.6
0
10
20
30
40
Average Frames Per Second - higher is better

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Cave)

1280x960 0xAA 0xAF, Maximum Quality, DX10

  • Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • 83.1
  • 80.7
  • 79.3
  • 76.8
  • 62.9
  • 56.2
  • 50.3
  • 47.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Average Frames Per Second - higher is better

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (Cave)

1920x1200 0xAA 0xAF, Maximum Quality, DX10

  • Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.67GHz, 1333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (2x3.20GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (2x3.00GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • 50.1
  • 50.1
  • 50.0
  • 49.9
  • 49.6
  • 49.0
  • 49.0
  • 46.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Average Frames Per Second - higher is better

The only clear difference here in Direct X 10 Lost Planet is the single low resolution "Cave" benchmark, where the Penryn CPU notches up another win. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ seems to hold its own in the "Snow" benchmark but as soon as you go indoors, the X2 6400+ joins the X2 6000+ at the bottom of the table.

So as long as you stay outside playing Lost Planet with an AMD CPU, you'll have similar performance to the fastest processor available, however the price difference between the QX9650 and the X2 6400+ is astronomical - you could use the difference to buy a large screen and just play at high resolution where there's less difference and it's more GPU-limited. However, in the same respect, you could also buy a Q6600 G0 and overclock it which you simply can't do with a high-end AMD chip, as they're pretty much right on the ragged edge.
Discuss this in the forums
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04