• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel Q6600 vs Q9400

Stonedofmoo

Stonedofmoo

Stonedofmoo

Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
6,242
Location
Portsmouth
The Q9400 with 6Mb cache is around but hard to come by. But how do these compare to the Q6600's

The older chip has more cache which undoubtably helps. The Q9400 has the new 45nm process and power saving functionality. Has anyone seen a Q9400 review?
 
Seen the price cut on the Q9400 but none in stock. OcUK have them but are a tenner more. Will they price match if I call them?
 
Pretty sure they had theirs priced over £200 a few hours ago and now it's less so you never know :)

Once you factor in the free shipping OCUK is about the same anyhow.
 
lol every time I look at the Q9400 it's gone down in price. £190 now, good work ocuk :)

Now they just need to do the same for the Q9550, it seems to have a popularity tax being applied to it atm.
 
Q9400s are not very good. They have less cache than the Q6600 and a lower multiplier, so they're harder to overclock. The Q6600 is also faster clock-for-clock.

The only benefits are the cool-running 45nm process, and various SSE extensions.

Personally I'd get a Q6600, or find a Q9450 second hand :)
 
Stonedofmoo said:
lol every time I look at the Q9400 it's gone down in price. £190 now, good work ocuk :)
Click to expand...

Yep, they've match the price already.

reflux said:
The Q6600 is also faster clock-for-clock.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Got any links?

reflux said:
The only benefits are the cool-running 45nm process, and various SSE extensions.
Click to expand...

That's why I was looking at the Q9400. SSE4.1 for encoding and cooler process. I'd be happy enough with 3.4/3.6ghz.
 
reflux said:
Q9400s are not very good. They have less cache than the Q6600 and a lower multiplier, so they're harder to overclock. The Q6600 is also faster clock-for-clock.
Click to expand...

What? No it isn't thats nonsense. Just read reviews of the older Q9300 chips, overclocked a 3.5Gig Q9300 bested the Q6600 at 3.6Gig in almost every benchmark or matched it.

So clock for clock the 6Mb cache 9 series are faster than the older 8Mb cache Q6600's.
 
I'm pretty sure that in encoding with sse4 it would be loads faster than a q6600 clock-for-clock too.

Surely 2mb cache isn't going to matter that much either?

I'd really like a Q9550 but I don't think I want to spend over 200 notes.
 
Me neither, I don't actually want a fast processor. I want a good middle of the range quad that has Intel-VT extensions and can overclock to 3.6gig when I want to game which isn't that often.

The Q9400 seems to fit the bill nicely...
 
Thing is, if I can get a retail Q9550 for 215 sheets then surely OcUK could sell me an OEM one for 200 of my finest British pounds!?

Everyone's a winner.........job done.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom