Q9300 vs. Q6600

[nOcLuE98]

X-bit labs - The Youngest of Yorkfields: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor Review

Not bad. Seems that there wont be a problem with FSB on the chips, can your mobo keep up?

Lets hope the q9450/q9500 performs the same way.

[Merkwürdigliebe]

if you look through the gaming section, there's no difference at all... in fact the Q6600 beats it in some place... Iunno, with the Q6700 coming down in price in April, and with a 10x multiplier, it seems a lot more appealing... the Q9450 is only .5x more...

[nOcLuE98]

no, the q9400 is only .5 more. the q9450 is 8.5x

I dont know, the motherboard is holding the little thing back.

If the q9450 can drop to some decent prices, I think it will end up the OCers choice. Faster fsb, more cache.. because I am pretty sure the q9450 steps up the cache right?

[veedubfreak]

The 9450 also has 12mb of cache, the 9300 and 9400 only have 6mb.

[nOcLuE98]

ok thats what I thought.

I think the performance is not bad. I expected this chip to be a flop because of the 7.5 multi, but I think it did rather well for the slowest, smallest cache, and smallest multi chip. I really hope the price of the q9450 is not bad. I am guessing it will be up around 450-500 though...

[veedubfreak]

9450 is supposed to be around 320 and 9550 around 520. Either way, i think i'm just going to stick it out with my q6600 for now.
Must
Stop
Spending
Money
On
Parts

[b1gapl]

Originally Posted by veedubfreak

9450 is supposed to be around 320 and 9550 around 520. Either way, i think i'm just going to stick it out with my q6600 for now.
Must
Stop
Spending
Money
On
Parts

Mind over matter veedub...

Save it for the next thing. Just think to yourself, whenever you're about to purchase another part, "Hey, my computer is better than all of the PCs here."

[Merkwürdigliebe]

Originally Posted by nOcLuE98

no, the q9400 is only .5 more. the q9450 is 8.5x

I dont know, the motherboard is holding the little thing back.

If the q9450 can drop to some decent prices, I think it will end up the OCers choice. Faster fsb, more cache.. because I am pretty sure the q9450 steps up the cache right?

Originally Posted by Merkwürdigliebe

Q9450 FSB = 1333MHz

QDR = 1333MHz/4 = 333.25MHz

333.25MHz x 8 (multiplier) = 2666MHz = 2.66GHz

If the Q9450 had an 8.5x multiplier, its default clock would be 2.83GHz, which it's not, the Q9550 has an 8.5x multiplier and it's got a default clock of 2.83GHz. Look for yourself:



VR-Zone : Technology Beats - Intel Desktop CPUs Price Cut Schedule


List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah more L2, I know... but whatever, I don't think there'll be a major difference over 8MB and 12MB to be quite honest

[veedubfreak]

6mb. The q6xxx have 8, the low end q9xxx have 6, and the higher end have 12mb. And cache makes a huge difference until the new architecture does away with FSB.

[Merkwürdigliebe]

Originally Posted by veedubfreak

6mb. The q6xxx have 8, the low end q9xxx have 6, and the higher end have 12mb. And cache makes a huge difference until the new architecture does away with FSB.

I know, I was reffering to the Q9450 vs the Q6600...

Considering that the Q6600 is about $100 cheaper on average, the Q6600 still beats it out for value, some Q9450s are almost $400... the Q9300 is going for about $310... the price and low multi is just not doing it for these processors. I mean, in those reviews, the only benefit I see is if you're into encoding and the likes - but in gaming there's no improvement whatsoever, and as for the cache, I don't see it helping in games....