Q6600 v Q9450

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 10:10

Right , I'm stuck. I have a budget and if I buy the Q9450 I will run over the budget once I buy Speakers etc, but I think If i got with the Q6600 then I could do it.

I will use the pc for Gaming/Graphic Design(Photoshop,Illustrator)/Internet/Music all at the same time(Bar the Graphic Design)

Looking at the specs , It seems you pay the extra for 4mb extra cache and also the .2 ghz extra. Is it really worth it for a user like me?

Could use explain the Cache and also the stepping i have read about somewhere?

I can get the Q9450 for £210 And the Q6600 for £140. Which could make me buy a new amplifier etc

Greebo · 27 May 2008 at 10:23

Stick with the Q6600. It will run quite happily at 3Ghz with no extra effort. Spend the money saved elsewhere IMO

Slinwagh · 27 May 2008 at 10:24

I would personally go for the Q6600 and use the extra money for the amp. You are not going to see a massive difference in performance.

Ben M · 27 May 2008 at 10:25

skeeny said:
Looking at the specs , It seems you pay the extra for 4mb extra cache and also the .2 ghz extra. Is it really worth it for a user like me?

Q9450 is also a newer process (45nm) so it runs cooler, it's also meant to be clock-for-clock faster.

I don't think that you'd notice a big difference, not one that justifies the big pric difference.

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 10:30

Yeh, I suppose in the future , if I got a compatible Mobo, i could just swap them around(45nm & the Q6600)?

Ben M · 27 May 2008 at 10:37

skeeny said:
Yeh, I suppose in the future , if I got a compatible Mobo, i could just swap them around(45nm & the Q6600)?

Yes, most mobos support both, but it's worh checking.

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 10:46

Just reading some forums I found while searching on Google. Ben M would you be prepared to talk on MSN?

Vertigo · 27 May 2008 at 11:09

With Nehalem just over six months away I'd go with a cheap Q6600 for now and then look to make a big jump to Nehalem next time you upgrade.

Greebo · 27 May 2008 at 11:13

Ben M said:
Q9450 is also a newer process (45nm) so it runs cooler, it's also meant to be clock-for-clock faster.

I don't think that you'd notice a big difference, not one that justifies the big pric difference.

That's very true. Price difference atm is more like £100 and although clock for clock the Q9450 is about 10% quicker in some applications (max) in others the difference isn't much.

If going for extreme overclocking you might get your Q9450 running faster than your Q6600 but still not enough to warrant the extra difference.

Even if you hadn't been buying an amp, budget wise I would still have suggested the Q6600 and spending the £100 saved on superior cooling for the Q6600 or another 4Gb of memory or a better mobo etc and overall you would have ended up with a system faster than the Q9450 system IMO

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 11:20

Vertigo1 said:
With Nehalem just over six months away I'd go with a cheap Q6600 for now and then look to make a big jump to Nehalem next time you upgrade.

Ye I will do this.

Right then, now to find a amp etc

Minstadave · 27 May 2008 at 11:24

Isn't it harder to hit higher clocks with the Q9450 due to its low multi and most mobos FSB wall around 500mhz?

matt100 · 27 May 2008 at 11:32

Greebo said:
If going for extreme overclocking you might get your Q9450 running faster than your Q6600 but still not enough to warrant the extra difference.

other way round mate, you'll almost always get your G0 Q6600 to a higher clock speed than the Q9450. The low multi on the Q9450 along with them all seemingly topping out at 450-500fsb and allegedly being more fragile to voltage means you'd be lucky to get much past the mid 3GHZ clocks.

Clock for clock the Q9450 is faster but as you'll probably get the Q6600 faster it seems a total wast paying an extra £100, put it this way.. the Q9450 is near enough double the price with nowhere double the peformance!

Ben M · 27 May 2008 at 11:34

matt100 said:
other way round mate, you'll almost always get your G0 Q6600 to a higher clock speed than the Q9450. The low multi on the Q9450 along with them all seemingly topping out at 450-500fsb and allegedly being more fragile to voltage means you'd be lucky to get much past the mid 3GHZ clocks.

Clock for clock the Q9450 is faster but as you'll probably get the Q6600 faster it seems a total wast paying an extra £100, put it this way.. the Q9450 is near enough double the price with nowhere double the peformance!

Exactly, it may well get interesting Q3 when the prices drop though... But I suspect that the drops won't be very big over here.

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 11:42

Right thanks a lot guys. Q6600 it is, and I think Ill OC it to 3ghz and leave it.

Would I need any additional cooling stuff for this?

matt100 · 27 May 2008 at 11:42

all relative too, if the Q9450 drops the value of Q6600s will collapse too. Already under £100 in the MM if I see correctly.

I fail to see why people bother with anything more.. E8400 or Q6600 and you have more power than you could possibly need other than synthetic benchmarks.

I remember (nostalgia mode) when things like the P4 6xx and 9xx and the A64 X2 etc were £300 even for the more entry level parts!

We've never had it so good!

matt100 · 27 May 2008 at 11:45

skeeny said:
Right thanks a lot guys. Q6600 it is, and I think Ill OC it to 3ghz and leave it.

Would I need any additional cooling stuff for this?

no probably not but you might want to invest in a better HSF for noise/clocking.

Even something like an arctic freezer 7 pro or whatever its called (watercooler here sorry don't know air too much) will offer much higher clocking.

3ghz is very tame for a Q6600, you could be aiming for 3.5ghz+ with relative ease. 3.4ghz should only take a very small vcore bump, I'm seeing lots of people managing this with 1.375/1.4vcore.

*wags finger at early G0 Q6600 that needs 1.5v for 3.4ghz

*

Ben M · 27 May 2008 at 11:47

skeeny said:
Right thanks a lot guys. Q6600 it is, and I think Ill OC it to 3ghz and leave it.

Would I need any additional cooling stuff for this?

It should be okay at 3ghz on a stock cooler, but it will run much cooler under something like an arctic freezer 7 pro, and cooler still under a tuniq tower or a thermalright ultra extreme (both more expensive than a freezer 7)

If you don't want a big OC, then get a freezer 7. They tend to be noisy at higher fan speeds. If you want a higher OC (3.2+ then get a tuniq or a TRUE)

Getting a Q6600 up to clocks higher than 3ghz isn't that difficult, personally I'd take the time to see how high you can get it.

revolutionrock · 27 May 2008 at 11:54

Right. Thanks a lot guys you have been a massive help.

Now need to know what things I need for my sound system

I have two sony speakers , I need a Amplifier. Anything else? (sound card?)

Ben M · 27 May 2008 at 11:58

skeeny said:
Right. Thanks a lot guys you have been a massive help.

Now need to know what things I need for my sound system

I have two sony speakers , I need a Amplifier. Anything else? (sound card?)

That depends how good you want the sound to be. For casual use then onboard sound is fine, if you're an audiophile, then you'll want a sound card.

matt100 · 27 May 2008 at 12:00

do you need an amp for the speakers because they're huge or something?

Half decent mobos normally have more than acceptable onboard sound, high spec mobos now often come with their own daughterboard soundcards and alternatively there's the Asus soundcards.

I'd avoid the xfis tbh, bad experiences and the driver support is awful.

Also you need to change your sig mate, its 400x75 pixels/20kb max, thought I'd tell you before a mod does