Maybe a little off topic

[Paul Gress]

I'm going to upgrade my computer processor. I currently have an Intel
Core 2 Duo E6850 (Socket 775).

So here's my question, what is the difference between the Intel Q9650
and X3380 besides the .16ghz speed difference. Is one architecture
better then the other. Both have 12meg of cache, both are quad, and
both dissipate 95W. My belief is the X3380 is the better processor.
Any ideas?

Paul

[Greg Andrews]

According to the info on these two pages on wikipedia:

Q9650:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

X3380:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors

The main functional specs for speed, cache, front-side bus, etc.,
are the same for the two processors. (except the small speed
difference you noticed) The Q9650 was released just over a year
ago and the X3380 7 months ago.

The feature lists are almost identical also. The difference is
that the X3360 has "Enhanced Halt State (C1)" and the Q9650 has
"Trusted Execution Technology (TXT)".

Enhanced C1 (aka C1E) is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface

and seems to be a sleep mode that conserves power.

TXT is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Execution_Technology

and seems to be a software security feature, but read the whole
first paragraph of the page.

To my eyes, the differences between the two processors (according
to the above wikipedia pages) are very minor. On the whole, I
tend to think the Q9650's C1E feature will be more useful in a
workstation machine than the X3380's TXT feature.

-Greg
--
Do NOT reply via e-mail.
Reply in the newsgroup.

[Paul Gress]

Greg Andrews wrote:

>
>
> To my eyes, the differences between the two processors (according
> to the above wikipedia pages) are very minor. On the whole, I
> tend to think the Q9650's C1E feature will be more useful in a
> workstation machine than the X3380's TXT feature.
>
> -Greg

Greg,

Thanks for the input. I never thought to use wikipedia to research the
processors. What I didn't mention is this is for my Laptop. Yes, my
Laptop takes Desktop processors, limited to 95W. So the X3380 may be
the better choice due to C1E, plus it's .16Ghz faster (about 5%).

The other difference the "Overclockers" like about this chip is it's 9.5
multiplier as opposed to 9.0 on the Q9650. They also claim it runs
cooler at above 4Ghz. I don't intent to overclock it. This is probably
what causes to price to be inflated as compared to the Q9560.

Also, the Q9650 is called "Core 2" and the X3380 is called "Xeon". Why
would they have two different processor lines and be so similar?

Paul

[Greg Andrews]

Paul Gress <pgr...@pb.net> writes:
>
>Thanks for the input. I never thought to use wikipedia to research the
>processors.
>

I didn't either. I checked there because I thought I could merely
verify the sizes of the L2 cache in the two processors. I was very
surprised to see the quantity and detail of info about the chips.

>
>Also, the Q9650 is called "Core 2" and the X3380 is called "Xeon". Why
>would they have two different processor lines and be so similar?
>

In fact they both come from the "Yorkfield" designation of the
microarchitecture and fabrication process. I have no idea why
Intel markets such similar chips under different names.

A wild guess might be that the slightly different sets of features
may appeal to different markets. Chips that pass the tests for
C1E functions but fail the ones for TXT can be sold to one market,
and chips with the reverse flaws can be sold to the other.