Conclusion
Intel has introduced low-power, 45 nm quad core processors for the desktop market. Although AMD was first to release such a product, the Intel processors are exactly as fast as the regular 95 W versions.
The only real difference besides the power consumption level is their pricing, which is higher as a result of the lower energy use. While the Q8200 costs $163, the Q8200S has a $245 price tag. The price difference between the Core 2 Quad Q9400 and the Q9400S is $101. The Q9550S top model is only $52 more expensive than the regular version.
We believe this is a lot, as Intel has been offering low power 65 W Xeon quad-cores for a while now, and hence does have some experience with these parts. On the other hand, their new S-series models represent a unique selling proposition. After all, AMD currently does not offer quad-core processors at upper mainstream clock speeds and mainstream power envelopes.
The 8200S may not make a lot of sense when compared to a regular Core 2 Duo E8500 or E8600, but the Q9400S and Q9550S deliver significant performance within the mainstream 65 W TDP specification. Here’s hoping that AMD will be able to offer a low-power Phenom II soon as well.
Check prices for Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9400S
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
Shouldn't the 80+ Gold spec be 87% efficiency at 100% load, rather that 97% efficiency?
Also, would have like a chip-for-chip comparison with these new CPUs and their 95W brethren
Check prices for Intel\'s Core 2 Quad Q9400S\r\n\r\nYou\'d think the price check would be able to take you to the £ price.\r\n
This is a COMPLETE SNOW JOB with discussion about power supply efficiency trying to take us away from the fact that these are NOT LOW POWER QUAD CORE CPU\'s at all.\r\n\r\nJeesh ... \r\n\r\nThese two are Intel Kool Aide addicts ...\r\n\r\nYou will never see them write areticles that are Anti-Intel or Pro-AMD.\r\n\r\nI throw down the gauntlet gentlemen ... show me one AMD cpu article you have written that is purely positive ... without some kind of swipe at them.\r\n\r\nI can\'t find one.\r\n\r\nThis leads me to believe you are paid advertising ... not objective reviewers at all. \r\n\r\nProve me wrong and respond to this post instead of deleting it like last time !!
Nice one Reynod, the first two sentences contain comments on the negative aspects of purchasing an intel i7.
So are you saying there are no downsides to owning an AMD processor? Doesnt that make you a bit of hippocrite? I've owned processors by four different manufacturers in the past my previous processor was an Athlon Thunderbird, my current one is a core2duo, each were the best for me at the time - and thats whats important - to balance the pros and cons of each processor against your needs...
reynod, you are such a fanboy, amd still hasn't got the better cpu so why would you in godsname put in a energy efficient article amd before the clearly better intel cpu's? THIS is objective and correct, and I know that amd has good cpu's, the phenom II is going in my new setup so that is not the problem.
The problem is that you don't get the reason this reviews are written.
If you want a positive amd review look for the amd athon64 x2 reviews a few years ago, then amd ruled... now intel has the upper hand in the topsegment of cpu's. Deal with it.
Its all mute tbh, most common sense people buy what they need at the time. I have a low power AMD for media machine becuase the best board at the time used AMD, for my gaming rig I have Intel because that gives me the best price per buck performance. It is the same for graphics. I choose which is better for the job i want at the time. I wish people would see that. Price and performance is a key point with energy efficiency becoming more important. I dont care for branding rather that the item I purchase can do the job.
Zebzz for me having 2 new PCs is a waste of money. Having one which does the job of 2 is good enough.
The new Intel CPUs are great and shows despite i7 intel hasn't given up on socket 775. Just wish these "greener" cpus where not so expensive (as thats puts a crack in Intel's announcement).
Zebzz for me having 2 new PCs is a waste of money. Having one which does the job of 2 is good enough.
The new Intel CPUs are great and shows despite i7 intel hasn't given up on socket 775. Just wish these "greener" cpus where not so expensive (as thats puts a crack in Intel's announcement).
Physical location of living room to computer room requires the use of two computers but again the idea of buying what is capable would just be based on the higher needs of the hardware.
I drive an overclocked and undervolted Q6600 ... have for quite a while.
Guess that makes me an AMD Fanboi eh ??
Noobs ...
will wrote:
Nice one Reynod, the first two sentences contain comments on the negative aspects of purchasing an intel i7. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT LOW POWER PENRYN QUADS IDIOT ... NOT i7 ... SHEESH ...
So are you saying there are no downsides to owning an AMD processor? DEPENDS ... I WOULDNT BUY A PHENON I ...
Doesnt that make you a bit of hippocrite? NOPE.
I've owned processors by four different manufacturers in the past my previous processor was an Athlon Thunderbird, my current one is a core2duo, each were the best for me at the time - and thats whats important - to balance the pros and cons of each processor against your needs... I AGREE ... LOOK AT THE POWER ENVELOPE FIGURES AND INTERPRET THE DATA YOURSELF ... I DID ... IT DIDNT ADD UP.
2shea wrote:
reynod, you are such a fanboy, amd still hasn't got the better cpu so why would you in godsname put in a energy efficient article amd before the clearly better intel cpu's? THIS is objective and correct, and I know that amd has good cpu's, the phenom II is going in my new setup so that is not the problem.
The problem is that you don't get the reason this reviews are written.
If you want a positive amd review look for the amd athon64 x2 reviews a few years ago, then amd ruled... now intel has the upper hand in the topsegment of cpu's. Deal with it. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY POINT SO I WON'T BOTHER ... YOUR A FOOL.
Reynod, the fact that just used the word "Noobs" makes me think you dont have the maturity to contribute to a Toms Hardware forum. Perhaps you should stick to flame wars on WoW forums.
I would have to agree, toms does seem to focus on the negative on AMD chips and positives of Intel’s.
I have a Core2 Quad and also an Athlon X2 5600. I am not bias to either make of chip I generally go for what’s good at the time for the price.
It would be nice to see a few more reviews that are less,”I love Intel” and more “what are the pros and cons to both chips”.
AMD are just going through a rough patch and i am sure they will come through it stronger.
I am sure people have forgotten that Intel went through a bad patch too and now look at them.
Let’s all not slate each other as we all want the same thing. Good Reviews and great products.
Have a great day all and let’s hope for some more great reviews.
/Ubereme
I'm on my 1st Intel chip since the Pentium II, now a Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz.
Maybe they are biased, maybe not.
All personal preference at the end of the day. Anyone looking at this site on a regular basis has enough knowledge in their own head to make an educated choice about what Chip to buy so why get so upset about it.
Oh, and on the power point who out of the average public Joe even cares?
Probably none of them, it does what they want when they turn it on.
Personally if some one handed me 2x Q6600 for example and said 1 runs faster than the other even i wouldn't care about the power needed.
How are those new 40 Watt Opterons then.
Full HT speed ... up to 2.3Ghz.
Quad core.
No answer from Intel ... nope.