E8400 OR Q6600

[Hesky82]

I was under the impression that it was to be phased out soon as all the plants are going across to the 45nm process! Anyway, that is why the Q6600 is so cheap as this review will tell you it is history. http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9300_Processor/?page=8

So if your e-penis says go quad then it has to be at least a Q9300, but perhaps the Q9450 will be the defacto standard. Well for 3 months or so.

That’s only the case if you compare stock for stock though. If you overclock (who on this board doesnt) the Q6600 is still a better alternative over the Q9300 and the Q9450 is still too expensive to warrant the slight improvement it gives over the old kentfields.

"e-penis says go quad" Dont talk rubbish!! some people actually have a use for quads and find them to be far more productive than a current wolfdale dual however fast it is clocked. I wouldn’t still be using my Q6600 if it wasn’t for its stupidly good rendering abilities in pro/e and 3dsm.

 

[GunRunner]

Where does that review say that a Q6600 isn't going to hack it - or indeed, come into it's own - in forthcoming games?

Nowhere, that's where

I did not say that at all.... It is being phased out and that is a fact once all the plants have moved across to the 45nm process.

 

[Hesky82]

Why does it matter if its being phased out or not??? The Oxygen HD CMI8788 audio chip was phased out a year or so ago but that hasnt stopped it from still being the highest fidelity sound card audio processor bar non. thats just one example of how pointless your reasoning is. I’m not saying the old kentfields will continue to be the best bang for buck quad but right now without a doubt they are, of course when the full cache yorkfields get cheaper the tables will turn.

 

[easyrider]

Why does it matter if its being phased out or not??? The Oxygen HD CMI8788 audio chip was phased out a year or so ago but that hasnt stopped it from still being the highest fidelity sound card audio processor bar non. thats just one example of how pointless your reasoning is. I’m not saying the old kentfields will continue to be the best bang for buck quad but right now without a doubt they are, of course when the full cache yorkfields get cheaper the tables will turn.

It doesn't:

So if your e-penis says go quad then it has to be at least a Q9300,

Why bother with a reply when this is what is getting posted?

Utter nonsense.

He probably doesn't even know what multi a Q9300 has.

 

[GunRunner]

It doesn't:

Why bother with a reply when this is what is getting posted?

Utter nonsense.

He probably doesn't even know what multi a Q9300 has.

You of course are the authority on my knowledge and experience eh?

 

[easyrider]

You of course are the authority on my knowledge and experience eh?

Hardly,

Your lack of knowledge seems clear enough.

As suggesting a Q9300 is clearly a bad idea.

 

[Plasmoid]

I was under the impression that it was to be phased out soon as all the plants are going across to the 45nm process! Anyway, that is why the Q6600 is so cheap as this review will tell you it is history. http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9300_Processor/?page=8D

No the Q9450 is apparently being phased out right now with stock running out in a few months, to be replaced by the lower cache, cheaper Q9400. The Q6600 is being kept on because all those 65nm fabs have nothing to do but spew out shedloads of Pentium branded Core 2's for Dell.

 

[GunRunner]

Hardly,

Your lack of knowledge seems clear enough.

As suggesting a Q9300 is clearly a bad idea.

So if I understand you, you are the only one in step? Also a typical answer from someone who has very limited knowledge in this field...but there again with all your posts, you are the expert and not me who has only just joined the forum....I love these debates....read on..



" As our benchmark results and power consumption tests have shown, Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9300 represents a solid upgrade over the Core 2 Quad Q6600, which we’ve come to know and love. Even though the Q9300 has a decreased cache size and only meager improvements in terms of clock speed, all in all, performance is improved, especially in video encoding tasks, and power consumption and heat production are reduced by substantial margins as well."

 

[GunRunner]

No the Q9450 is apparently being phased out right now with stock running out in a few months, to be replaced by the lower cache, cheaper Q9400.

.

In our eyes, the Core 2 Quad Q9300’s biggest competitor comes from Intel itself. Intel is starting to begin mass shipments of the rest of their quad-core lineup, including the highly anticipated Core 2 Quad Q9450 processor, which has double the amount of L2 cache as the Q9300 and slightly higher clock speeds for a meager price increase. Given the massive difference in cache, we’d expect that enthusiasts will target this chip rather than the Q9300 as a starting point for a new system.

The Q6600 is being kept on because all those 65nm fabs have nothing to do but spew out shedloads of Pentium branded Core 2's for Dell.

You quote Dell here! You've got to be joking. As you well know they produce for the masses who only buy a computer on price and not on performance.

 

[Greebo]

So if I understand you, you are the only one in step? Also a typical answer from someone who has very limited knowledge in this field...but there again with all your posts, you are the expert and not me who has only just joined the forum....I love these debates....read on..



" As our benchmark results and power consumption tests have shown, Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9300 represents a solid upgrade over the Core 2 Quad Q6600, which we’ve come to know and love. Even though the Q9300 has a decreased cache size and only meager improvements in terms of clock speed, all in all, performance is improved, especially in video encoding tasks, and power consumption and heat production are reduced by substantial margins as well."

Well the Q9300 is a bad idea because:

Yes, clock per clock it will be about 10% faster than a q6600 in certain apps but it is crippled with a 7.5 multi which means if you want run at 4Ghz your fsb will need to be 533. Know any mobos capable of doing that? Even for 3.8Ghz you need a board capable of doing 507Mhz.

Okay, not many q6600 run at 4Ghz either but you get my point. My Q6600 does run at 3.8Ghz.

Realistically the best overclock you can hope for a Q9300 chip will be around 3.5Ghz. If you can get your q6600 running at 3.8Ghz you have negated the speed advantage of the q9300 and in all apps the q6600 will be as quick or quicker than the q9300.

The q9300 already costs more than £40 more than the q6600 so even comparing them at the same clock speed of say 3.5Ghz, your 30% more money has only got you a 10% gain in speed. Doesn't add up especially if you can get more than 3.5Ghz from your q6600.

If you are going down the qxxx route then you really should spend the extra and get the q9450 but that costs yet another £44 and you are again in the problem of does the extra performance justify the extra £85? Probable not on a bang for buck basis.

IMO the Q9300 is just too much money for what it does since it has been crippled and the extremely cheap prices Intel are selling Q6600 off atm.

Don't forget low VID q6600 can be bough 2nd hand for £90 now whereas then 2nd hand Q9300 market is non existant.

Now if the Q9300 dropped in price to around the q6600 level then it would be a no brainer.

So if you have the money, certainly buy a q9450. If you are on a budget, buy the q6600 either new or 2nd hand as the £85 saved will buy you a superior cooling setup for your q6600.

The q9300 just doesn't offer enough performance for the extra money and is an oddball in the lineup.

EDIT: The new Q9400 does remove some of the problems with the Q9300 such as the multiplier but unless they release it at current Q9300 prices then it won't be worth it if it is pitched between the current Q9300 and Q9450 prices.

 

[GunRunner]

Well the Q9300 is a bad idea because:

Yes, clock per clock it will be about 10% faster than a q6600 in certain apps but it is crippled with a 7.5 multi which means if you want run at 4Ghz your fsb will need to be 533. Know any mobos capable of doing that? Even for 3.8Ghz you need a board capable of doing 507Mhz.

Okay, not many q6600 run at 4Ghz either but you get my point. My Q6600 does run at 3.8Ghz.

Realistically the best overclock you can hope for a Q9300 chip will be around 3.5Ghz. If you can get your q6600 running at 3.8Ghz you have negated the speed advantage of the q9300 and in all apps the q6600 will be as quick or quicker than the q9300.

The q9300 already costs more than £40 more than the q6600 so even comparing them at the same clock speed of say 3.5Ghz, your 30% more money has only got you a 10% gain in speed. Doesn't add up especially if you can get more than 3.5Ghz from your q6600.

If you are going down the qxxx route then you really should spend the extra and get the q9450 but that costs yet another £44 and you are again in the problem of does the extra performance justify the extra £85? Probable not on a bang for buck basis.

IMO the Q9300 is just too much money for what it does since it has been crippled and the extremely cheap prices Intel are selling Q6600 off atm.

Don't forget low VID q6600 can be bough 2nd hand for £90 now whereas then 2nd hand Q9300 market is non existant.

Now if the Q9300 dropped in price to around the q6600 level then it would be a no brainer.

So if you have the money, certainly buy a q9450. If you are on a budget, buy the q6600 either new or 2nd hand as the £85 saved will buy you a superior cooling setup for your q6600.

The q9300 just doesn't offer enough performance for the extra money and is an oddball in the lineup.

EDIT: The new Q9400 does remove some of the problems with the Q9300 such as the multiplier but unless they release it at current Q9300 prices then it won't be worth it if it is pitched between the current Q9300 and Q9450 prices.

Greebo.

Nice to see someone who doesnt just want to shout people down. I agree with many of your points, but not all. Anyway, IMHO this thread has run its course, but you and everyone else knows that as soon as intel drop the price of the later chips such as the Q9450 then the whole emphasis changes. In 3 months time or should I say from September onwards, we should revisit this!

 

[easyrider]

" As our benchmark results and power consumption tests have shown, Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9300 represents a solid upgrade over the Core 2 Quad Q6600, which we’ve come to know and love. Even though the Q9300 has a decreased cache size and only meager improvements in terms of clock speed, all in all, performance is improved, especially in video encoding tasks, and power consumption and heat production are reduced by substantial margins as well."

Thats at stock speeds.

So the quote means nothing.

 

[easyrider]

Greebo.

Nice to see someone who doesnt just want to shout people down. I agree with many of your points, but not all. Anyway, IMHO this thread has run its course, but you and everyone else knows that as soon as intel drop the price of the later chips such as the Q9450 then the whole emphasis changes. In 3 months time or should I say from September onwards, we should revisit this!

I'm not shouting you down,

You are spouting bad advice that is clearly inaccurate for anyone wanting to go quad core.


The Q6600 is the quad to get until the price of the 45nm parts fall in price.

Or one can clearly afford Q9450.

I ran my Q6600 at 3.8ghz 24/7 and benched it at 4.1ghz so buying a Q9300 over a Q6600 would have been a downgrade.So you suggesting a Q9300 is ludicrous quite frankly.

 

[GunRunner]

You are spouting bad advice that is clearly inaccurate for anyone wanting to go quad core.

I ran my Q6600 at 3.8ghz 24/7 and benched it at 4.1ghz so buying a Q9300 over a Q6600 would have been a downgrade.So you suggesting a Q9300 is ludicrous quite frankly.

Lets make it clear I am NOT and never have given anyone any advice on what they should choose. I am doing exactly what you are doing and that is contributing to a thread that is just full of personal opinions. I quoted from an article and you know it.

Most people come to the forum to ask questions and the best way to answer them is to quote from recognised articles in the trade, so that they can make an informed decision. That is exactly what I did. The percentage of people who overclock computers in this world are miniscule to the ones who dont, so me being ludicrous (in your opinion) is complete rubbbish. If anything I find your comments more ludicrous than mine. So I suggest we call it quits as I can see this going nowhere as a conversation or a thread.

 

[easyrider]

Lets make it clear I am NOT and never have given anyone any advice on what they should choose. I am doing exactly what you are doing and that is contributing to a thread that is just full of personal opinions. I quoted from an article and you know it.

Most people come to the forum to ask questions and the best way to answer them is to quote from recognised articles in the trade, so that they can make an informed decision. That is exactly what I did. The percentage of people who overclock computers in this world are miniscule to the ones who dont, so me being ludicrous (in your opinion) is complete rubbbish. If anything I find your comments more ludicrous than mine. So I suggest we call it quits as I can see this going nowhere as a conversation or a thread.

This is an enthusiast forum.

And most people will ask what hardware to get to get the best clocks.

You will not get the best clocks with a Q9300.

 

[GunRunner]

This is an enthusiast forum.

And most people will ask what hardware to get to get the best clocks.

.

Yes true, but I have provided links to here for people who wish to make informed purchasing decisions. Not for overclocking, but for particular motherboards and CPU combinations.

You will not get the best clocks with a Q9300.

Please please let me make myself clear again! I did not ever say you would! I was quoting an article! Wasn't I?

 

[Bonjour]

I came into this thread seeking some genuine advice on whether to purchase a quad or a duo.

Seems it was a mistake..

 

[Greebo]

I came into this thread seeking some genuine advice on whether to purchase a quad or a duo.

Seems it was a mistake..

Don't worry about it. It happens everytime somebody asks the same question, which is about two or three times a week!

Simple and quick answers (dons flameproof vest)

Just games: Get a duo
Want to do games and other things at the same time eg encode a video whilst playing crysis or do lots of 3d work/multitaking etc get a quad.

Take your choice. Neither is a poor one to be fair.

 

[Bonjour]

I was looking at either the E7200 or the Q6600.

The E7200 seems a pretty good deal right now, looking at the 9.5x multi and low FSB. Should be able to clock it up to, or around, 8500 levels. Plus it's £45 less than a quad.

If my reasoning's faulty, though, and I'm unlikely to get that sort of performance out of a 7200, then I'll probably go with the Q6600.

 

[easyrider]

I was looking at either the E7200 or the Q6600.

The E7200 seems a pretty good deal right now, looking at the 9.5x multi and low FSB. Should be able to clock it up to, or around, 8500 levels. Plus it's £45 less than a quad.

If my reasoning's faulty, though, and I'm unlikely to get that sort of performance out of a 7200, then I'll probably go with the Q6600.

2 extra cores, a 9x multi, 12 mb cache, only 45 quid more.

The answer is easy.