• 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.

New cheap (but insane performance) Quads coming!

gurusan said:
What?

4 is better than 2 !
Click to expand...

For the majority right this minute it is not buddy! they would simply benefit more from a faster dual core.....

X-Bit Labs said:
This picture is very ambiguous. There are still quite a lot of applications that haven’t been optimized for CPUs with more than two cores that is why Core 2 Quad Q9300 gets often defeated by Core 2 Duo E8500 due to the higher clock frequency of the latter. It is especially frustrating that games, even the latest ones, fall into the non-optimized applications category, as they still cannot use efficiently the advantages of multi-core micro-architecture. However, the situation is not as hopeless as it was 6 months ago, for instance. Game developers started paying some attention to optimizing their work for processors with more than two cores onboard. The list of games that provide quality quad-core processors support has increased significantly and currently includes such popular titles as Supreme Commander, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, Unreal Tournament 3, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, etc.
Click to expand...
 
The question is, when the q9300 does come out. Would people prefer the q9300 or q6600.

I see it this way.

Q9300 ocs to ~450x7.5= 3.375ghz where it hits an fsb wall.
Q6600 ocs to ~400x9= 3.6ghz where temps become a problem.

Q9300 has 6MB L2 cache while the Q6600 has L2 8MB cache. The Q9300 uses less electricity.

Which should I purchase? Using purely MSRP pricing.
 
Last edited:
ghost101 said:
The question is, when the q9300 does come out. Would people prefer the q9300 or q6600.

I see it this way.

Q9300 ocs to ~450x7.5= 3.375ghz where it hits an fsb wall.
Q6600 ocs to ~400x9= 3.6ghz where temps become a problem.

Q9300 has 6MB L2 cache while the Q6600 has L2 8MB cache. The Q9300 uses less electricity.

Which should I purchase? Using purely MSRP pricing.
Click to expand...

Err neither? Q9450 is the logical chip to get. It should do 3.6Ghz @ 450x8, run cooler that a Q6600 at the same speed and it will outperform it by quite a bit.
 
This is just stupid

most are saying in so many words, if you have a quad clocked at 3.6ghz you would rather lose 2 cores to gain 200-400mhz?

and you say 2 cores is better for games because of that extra 400mhz at best? pfft.. please, maybe you will gain about 3fps on the minimum framerate that you wouldnt even notice.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
This is just stupid

most are saying in so many words, if you have a quad clocked at 3.6ghz you would rather lose 2 cores to gain 200-400mhz?

and you say 2 cores is better for games because of that extra 400mhz at best? pfft.. please, maybe you will gain about 3fps on the minimum framerate that you wouldnt even notice.
Click to expand...


Q9300 max oc will be more like 3.3-3.5ghz, a cheaper E8400 will easily do 4GHz+ that’s more like 700-500mhz extra. Add to the fact it runs double the cache per pair of cores.

If someone went for a cheaper dual over the quad I wouldn’t consider them stupid at all :)

They have saved 50quid knowing that pretty much 90% of their apps will run faster on it.
 
gareth170 said:
no. nearly all games only use 1 or 2 cores. quads isn't needed for gamers yet...
Click to expand...

That's the point 'yet'. Back in AMD days, i chose a opteron single core over a dual core as i thought they'd be a waste. Sure maby one or two games showed a slight increase in fps but who cared? I thought it would end up like intels 'hyperthreading' chips - the only thing hyper about it was the reaction of your girlfreind when you told her how much you'd forked out for one.

Unreal tourny 3 and crysis along with some other noteable titles are already showing perf increases with quads, pretty much every new major title is going to show these increases and more - and you knowz it;)

Sure they use the cores extremely ineffeciantly but 25% of 2 extra cores clocked at 3.6 is still an extra 1.8 ghz over a same clocked dual :)
 
Hmmm.....I'm going to be putting in an order for a new PSU in the next few days, I've always wanted a new MB, and now these new bad boys are coming out? Oh god, why am I a member here *cries*?
 
q9300 seems to be faster than a q6600. i need a cpu atm so ill take the plunge i think.

edit - no i wont, its just a lower bin of the q9450 which is only 35 more
 
Last edited:
this is mostly unrelated by i noticed this from that x-bit review, think ill avoid a q6600!

power-1.png

power-2.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom