A10-9700 vs Core 2 Quad Q9650
Key Differences
In short — A10-9700 outperforms Core 2 Quad Q9650 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing A10-9700 is 3273 days newer than Core 2 Quad Q9650.
Advantages of AMD A10-9700
-
Performs up to 3% better in League of Legends than Core 2 Quad Q9650 — 803 vs 781 FPS
-
Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 — 65 vs 95 Watts
-
Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 doesn’t have integrated graphics
League of Legends
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
A10-9700
Desktop • Jul 27th, 2017
FPS
803
100%
Value, $/FPS
Price, $
FPS Winner
Core 2 Quad Q9650
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2008
FPS
781
97%
Value, $/FPS
$0.1/FPS
100%
Price, $
$78. 02
100%
Value Winner
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 CPU Processor (3.0Ghz/ 12M /1333GHz) Socket 775 Desktop CPU (Working 100%, Sell Q9550
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11 minutes ago
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
A10-9700
Desktop • Jul 27th, 2017
Core 2 Quad Q9650
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2008
197
FPS
191
FPS
Grand Theft Auto V
803
FPS
781
FPS
League of Legends
1078
FPS
1050
FPS
Minecraft
210
FPS
204
FPS
Apex Legends
344
FPS
334
FPS
VALORANT
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
A10-9700
Desktop • Jul 27th, 2017
Single-Core
498
100%
Multi-Core
1491
100%
Core 2 Quad Q9650
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2008
Single-Core
430
84%
Multi-Core
1333
88%
|
AMD A10-9700 |
vs |
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 |
|---|---|---|
|
Jul 27th, 2017 |
Release Date | Aug 10th, 2008 |
| A10 | Collection | Core 2 Quad |
| Bristol Ridge | Codename | Yorkfield |
| AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 775 |
|
Desktop |
Segment |
Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 4 | Threads | 4 |
|
3. |
Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
| 3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
|
65 W |
TDP | 95 W |
|
28 nm |
Process Size | 45 nm |
|
35.0x |
Multiplier | 9.0x |
|
Radeon R7 |
Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
5 GHzIntel Core i7-9700 vs Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W)
Summary
Reasons to consider Intel Core i7-9700 |
| This is a newer product, it might have better application compatibility/performance (check features chart below). |
| Has an integrated GPU, which allows to run the system without a dedicated graphics card, unlike the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W). |
| Higher theoretical gaming performance, based on raw specifications plus core architecture. |
Higher theoretical multi-threaded performance, based on specifications plus core architecture. |
| Higher overall performance, based on specifications plus core architecture. |
Reasons to consider Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) |
| None |
Gaming
HWBench recommends Intel Core i7-9700
Based on game and synthetic benchmarks, and theoretical specifications.
Productivity
HWBench recommends Intel Core i7-9700
Based on productivity benchmarks, overall multithreaded performance and theoretical specifications.
Features
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMX | ||||
| SSE | ||||
| SSE2 | ||||
| SSE3 | ||||
| SSSE3 | ||||
| SSE4.2 | ||||
| AVX | ||||
| AVX2 | ||||
| EIST | ||||
| Intel 64 | ||||
| XD bit | ||||
| VT-x | ||||
| VT-d | ||||
| HTT | ||||
| AES-NI | ||||
| TSX | ||||
| TXT | ||||
| CLMUL | ||||
| FMA3 | ||||
| F16C | ||||
| BMI1 | ||||
| BMI2 | ||||
Boost 2. 0 |
||||
| iAMT2 | ||||
Architecture
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Intel_Coffelake | vs | Intel_Core | |
| Market | Desktop | vs | Desktop | |
| Memory Support | DDR4-2666 MHz Dual-channel |
vs | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | vs | Kentsfield | |
| Release Date | Apr 2019 | vs | Jul 2007 |
Cores
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cores | 8 | vs | 4 | |
| Threads | 8 | vs | 4 | |
| SMPs | 1 | vs | 1 | |
| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | vs | No |
Cache
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 Cache | 64K (per core) | vs | 256 KB | |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | vs | 8192 KB | |
| L3 Cache | 12MB (shared) | vs | 0 KB |
Physical
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | vs | Intel Socket 775 | |
| Max Case Temp | 72°C | vs | unknown | |
| Package | FC-LGA14C | vs | FC-LGA6 | |
| Die Size | unknown | vs | 162mm² | |
| Process | 14 nm | vs | 65 nm |
Performance
| Intel Core i7-9700 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (95W) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cpu Frequency | 3000 MHz | vs | 2400 MHz | |
| Turbo Clock | 4700 MHz | vs | none | |
| Base Clock | 100 MHz | vs | 266 MHz | |
| Voltage | N/A | vs | 1. 34 V |
|
| TDP | 65 W | vs | 95 W |
Points — higher is better
Points — higher is better
0003
City
BerlinAach B TrierAach, HegauAachenAalenAarbergenAasbuettelAbbenrodeAbenbergAbensbergAbentheuerAbrahamAbsbergAbstattAbtsbessingenAbtsgmuendAbtsteinachAbtswindAbtweilerAchbergAchernAchimAchslachAchstettenAchtAchtelsbachAchterwehrAchtrupAckendorfAddebuellAdelbergAdelebsenAdelheidsdorfAdelmannsfeldenAdelschlagAdelsdorfAdelsheimAdelshofen, Kr FuerstenfeldbruckAdelshofen, MittelfrAdelsriedAdelzhausenAdenauAdenbachAdenbuettelAdendorfAderstedtAdlersteigeAdligstadtAdlkofenAdmannshagen-BargeshagenAdorf/Vogtl.AebtissinwischAerzenAffalterbachAffingAffinghausenAfflerAgathenburgAgethorstAglasterhausenAhamAhausAhausenAhlbeckAhlden (Aller)Ahlefeld-BistenseeAhlenAhlerstedtAhlsdorfAhlstaedtAhnatalAhnebyAhnsbeckAhnsenAholfingAholmingAhorn, BadenAhorn, Kr CoburgAhorntalAhrbrueckAhrensboekAhrensburgAhrensfeldeAhrenshagen-DaskowAhrenshoeftAhrenstedtAhrenvioelAhrenvioelfeldAicha Vorm WaldAichachAichelbergAichenAichhaldenAichstettenAichtalAichwaldAidenbachAidhausenAidlingenAiglsbachAilertchenAindling
How does Intel feel without Hyper-Threading? — i2HARD
Articles
Evgeny Serov
June 14, 2019
As it became known recently, four new hardware vulnerabilities affecting Intel processors were discovered.
These new «holes» allow attackers to gain access to user data using a third-party channel vulnerabilities — MDS (Microarchitectural Data Sampling), the most serious of which is probably «ZombieLoad».
Unlike previous bugs based on speculative execution of commands that partially affected AMD and Arm processors, MDS bugs are specific to Intel chips. You can reduce the risk from these vulnerabilities without waiting for patches and updates by disabling simultaneous multithreading (SMT), also known as “Hyper-Threading” from Intel.
Microsoft is currently preparing the Windows 10 1903 update, which is designed to fix four MDS vulnerabilities. But this does not completely solve the problem, BIOS updates are also needed and, as reported, Intel has already released new microcode for motherboard manufacturing partners. However, at the time of this writing, no new BIOS versions have been released. We decided to test the worst-case scenario by disabling Hyper-Threading. This may be the only solution for older computers, since it is unlikely that manufacturers will release patches for all models.
Today we will see how disabling Hyper-Threading affects Intel processors that support this feature. We’ve done this in the past, and it’s an interesting test, but now we have reason to look at the results more critically, given that a new security vulnerability in Intel processors is related to SMT.
For the test, we chose the Core i7-8700K and 7700K processors, testing their work in a number of games and applications with Hyper-Threading enabled and disabled. Octa-core i9-9900K we did not take, since the missing threads in it will not lead to a loss in performance in games, although in applications the corresponding negative impact will still be noticeable to the same extent as in 8700K and 7700K.
If we had more time (we’re getting ready for Computex 2019 right now, so stay tuned), we’d like to test some Intel dual-core processors with Hyper-Threading support as well, as they will undoubtedly have the most significant impact of this feature.
. Although, you can get by with the results of our previous tests of this technology.
All tests were performed on a computer equipped with 32 GB of DDR4-3200 memory, a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti graphics card (to prevent bottlenecks on the GPU) and Windows 10 build 1903. Gaming tests were carried out at both 1080p and 1440p, but we will start with tests applications.
Application tests
First of all, we got Cinebench R20 results and looking at the Core i7-8700K we see a 24% performance drop with Hyper-Threading disabled. Of course, this decrease in performance will not go unnoticed. Moreover, we actually turned the 8700K into a 7700K in terms of performance.
Meanwhile, the 7700K gets 26% slower with Hyper-Threading disabled, and now we have an old quad-core or Kaby Lake generation Core i5. For applications that actively use all cores, disabling SMT/Hyper-Threading has a significant performance impact.
WinRAR is experiencing a significant performance loss — 36% for the 8700K.
Clearly, Hyper-Threading performs well in this type of workload. We see the same strong drop in the 7700K — 39%.
Corona is a high performance renderer and here the 8700K showed a 31% performance drop with Hyper-Threading disabled, while the 7700K had a 33% performance hit. In both cases, the performance hit is large, and this will allow us to evaluate the performance of the updates that fix the vulnerability when performing rendering and encoding tasks.
Blender also suffers a significant performance hit when Hyper-Threading is disabled, although slightly less than Corona — 25% for the 8700K, i.e. something like Cinebench R20. Due to the lower core count, the 7700K suffers somewhat more, and here we see a performance drop of 29%.
Power input
Before moving on to gaming, we’d like to note the overall power consumption of the system. Yes, we don’t see the consumption of individual processors, so it’s hard to say anything about efficiency, but as you can see, disabling Hyper-Threading on the 8700K does not lead to significant power savings, reducing the overall system power consumption by only ~5%.
At the same time, disabling Hyper-Threading on the 7700K already results in 11% energy savings, and we attribute this to the fact that the quad-core 7700K uses this feature more actively than the six-core 8700K.
Game testing
Let’s start with the results of Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey at 1080p. On the 8700K, the average frame rate was reduced by only 13%, while the minimum (1%) did not change. On the other hand, the 7700K showed a significant drop in both the average frame rate and the 1% minimum — 23% and 21%, respectively. Owners of quad-core processors will experience a much greater performance hit when Hyper-Threading is disabled.
And now we can see that if at 1440p the graphics card takes control of you, the 8700K does a great job with disabled Hyper-Threading, thanks to the RTX 2080 Ti. For quad-core and, heaven forbid, dual-core processors, any limitation of Hyper-Threading will result in a loss of performance.
Battlefield V is a very CPU-intensive game, although we were only able to test the single-player mode, and even that required two Origin accounts due to the account lockout system when changing the configuration.
Back on topic, we again don’t see a significant performance hit here. The biggest drop was 12% when looking at the 7700K’s 1% minimum FPS.
Increasing the resolution to 1440p did not improve the minimum FPS situation, and we can see that in both cases, disabling Hyper-Threading does reduce performance, although this gap is no longer as large as in workloads.
Division 2’s results are brutal. Take a look at how the performance of the 7700K dropped when Hyper-Threading was disabled. The average frame rate is reduced by 37% and the minimum 1% by 38%, which is close to the results shown by WinRAR.
Yes, the impact on the performance of the 6-core 8700K is not so great, but even so, the drop in the minimum FPS by 13% will not be appreciated by most players. Jumping to 1440p and now the 8700K, even with Hyper-Threading disabled, is not a performance limiting factor, it is now taken over by the RTX 2080 Ti. However, we are still seeing a third of the performance drop on the 7700K, looking at its minimum 1% FPS.
A small note. Far Cry New Dawn feels better at 9700K than 8700K. The average frame rate at 9700K reaches ~120 at 1080p. But we would like to note that when we disable Hyper-Threading on the 8700K, it matches 9700K in this test, which means that the number of threads does not benefit this game, so 6 cores / 6 threads is generally more efficient for it. than 6 cores/12 threads. But there are very few such games.
As you can see, the 7700K with fewer cores does not suffer from this problem when Hyper-Threading is enabled, although it was still a little faster with disabled. So, this is one of the few games for which disabling Hyper-Threading is not a problem at all, and actually benefits. Provided, if you do not have a dual-core processor, of course.
We switch to 1440p, and we see that the number of cores does not solve anything here at all, and Hyper-Threading only slows down both processors.
Next we have Hitman 2, and here we can see that disabling Hyper-Threading doesn’t have a significant impact on the 8700K, however it is devastating for the quad-core 7700K.
The average frame rate dropped by 18%, but much worse, the 1% minimum FPS dropped by almost 30%. Sure, we’re still seeing solid 60+ fps, but for those who love big FPS, this performance hit is a hard one.
Even switching to 1440p didn’t help the 7700K deal with this hit, as we’re still seeing a min FPS drop of over 25%.
The next game is Rage 2, where disabling Hyper-Threading has little to no effect on the 8700K. In the 7700K, the average frame rate also remains almost unchanged, but the minimum 1% FPS drops quite significantly — by 20%.
Raise the resolution to 1440p in the Rage 2 and the CPU is no longer the performance limiting component. At least when looking at the 7700K without Hyper-Threading. So in this case, disabling Hyper-Threading does not affect performance.
We’ve already seen before how demanding Shadow of the Tomb Raider can be, and here we’ll see it again. The 8700K sees a 10-12% drop in average FPS when Hyper-Threading is disabled, while the 7700K has twice as much, by 24%.
However, the degradation of the minimum 1% FPS value is the same for both processors. In any case, disabling SMT has a profound effect on this game.
Even when moving to 1440p, the negative effect is significant, at least for the 7700K. The 8700K still sees a slight drop in performance, but that’s nothing compared to the 20% drop in the 7700K.
And finally — World War Z, using the low-level Vulkan API. This game runs great with 4 cores, so none of the CPUs suffer when Hyper-Threading is disabled. We see something similar at 1440p as both processors are able to extract the most performance from the RTX 2080 Ti.
Summary
We now have a good idea of how 4- and 6-core Intel processors perform with Hyper-Threading enabled versus disabled. In short, the performance of applications during the performance of basic resource-intensive operations usually decreased from 25 to 35%.
The performance impact in games can vary significantly depending on the game itself and other factors such as resolution, graphics settings and of course the graphics card installed.
In the games we tested, the 6-core Intel processor shows mostly minimal impact on its performance, although the minimum 1% FPS sometimes suffers noticeably, and when playing at a high refresh rate, the performance drop will be quite noticeable.
Owners of processors with topology 8/16, such as 9900K will hardly notice any effect of Hyper-Threading during gaming, but the drop in application performance will still be significant — 25-35% without SMT. On the other hand, the most significant performance degradation will be experienced by less powerful processors, which rely much more on Hyper-Threading. Even our quad-core 7700K often experienced significant performance loss in gaming tests, which means that for owners of dual-core SMT processors, disabling Hyper-Threading will be even more painful.
At this point, it’s hard to say with certainty what performance impact the mitigation software for the four MDS vulnerabilities will have on Windows machines, but we can expect some losses, especially where Hyper-Threading has the biggest impact.
Phoronix has tested these tools on Linux, and performance hits range from negligible to massive. In addition, Phoronix found that Intel systems are now ~16% slower than before before installing software mitigation for Specter, Meltdown, Foreshadow and Zombieload. While AMD systems showed a performance drop of only 3%. They also claim that these risk mitigations are enough to bring the Core i7-8700K closer to the Ryzen 7 2700X and Core i9.-7980XE to Threadripper 2990WX.
If Intel doesn’t pull the rabbit out of the hat and provide really effective software solutions, such that it would be possible not to disable Hyper-Threading, then owners of Intel dual- and quad-core processors with Hyper-Threading support may expect disappointing consequences. In the list of such processors: Core i3 and Core i5 — from Clarkdale to Kaby Lake; all Core i7 up to Kaby Lake; as well as Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake processors from the Pentium family.
For those who are content with older hardware and don’t perform any mission-critical tasks until an attack on MDS exploits is clearly detected, the best option to maintain performance is probably not to install updates against such attacks.