• 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.

Q6600 now or Q9450 in 2 months time?

steve258

steve258

steve258

Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
5,009
As titled I fancy a quad core but wondering if it's worth waiting till March for the Q9450? Or am I better off getting a 2nd hand Q6600 off MM? Any indication of UK prices for these bad boys?
 
stone_cold_Jimi said:
What's the max multi on the 9450? 8x? Unless you can get a really good FSB, the Q6600 (G0) is still prolly a better bet for 4GHz (if you're going that far). Not many mobos will do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah it has 8 multi, I'm not looking for 4Ghz oc so it should be ok FSB wise. Definately won't get it if it's closer to £300 though!!
 
Q6600 now is in a pretty mature state, new Penryns/Yorkies are early-adopter, immature releases. Plus, allegedly, delayed due to bugs? Though that could be a simple marketing reaction to AMD's hassles. I'd wait at least 6 months **if at all possible**.

Having said that, if you've already been waiting...
 
I thought they were supposed to be replacing the Q6600s?
Click to expand...

Q9300 is the replacement price point for the Q6600

Q9450 I believe is a new price point you would prolly be looking at about £210 -£220 inc

Q9550 is the replacement price point for Q6700.
 
A second hand Q6600 would be so much cheaper than a Q9450.

Even buying a brand new Q6600 G0 right now would still make sense, just as mk17 says the Q6600 has matured, late ones are overclocking very well. I’ve got one sitting at 4Ghz with just 1.5volts. To crack the same frequency you will be looking at 500fsb with a Q9450. For anything other than benching that’s asking a lot from current motherboards. Granted at the same speed the Q9450 will be slightly faster, but will it be worth the extra 70quid
 
The gap between the Q9300/Q6600 and the Q9450 is more like $50 in 1000 unit quantities if you've actually looked up any of these prices ($266 vs. $316, I know 'ohh look its significant digit goes up more!' Makes you think the processor's gonna be uber expensive, just leave those silly notions)... If it's any more than a £45 price gap between the Q9300 and Q9450 I swear I'll post hi-def pictures of me spraying cillit bang in my undies.

icpufc7.jpg


Yes, I'm aware they used, 'QX' instead of 'Q' on some of those processors, but try and find some prices that contradict those. I sure as hell can't.
 
Lightnix said:
If it's any more than a £45 price gap between the Q9300 and Q9450 I swear I'll post hi-def pictures of me spraying cillit bang in my undies.
Click to expand...

You heard it here first folks :)

I wouldn't be surprised to be honest, we already know the demand on the 9450 will be huge.
 
Not if it's stupidly priced it won't... Assuming it has the FSB wall of all the other quads that've been tested, you'll be lucky to get it past 3.6Ghz. And let's face it, is having less cache really going to cripple these chips? I wouldn't count on it. The clockspeed difference is a meagre 100Mhz, you get a bit more cache (ohh, big whoop, that'll make superPi a bit faster). Even for us overclocking type people, the multiplier difference is only .5 (7.5 vs. 8).

It's like, hypothetically, if there were a Q4000 range with 8MB total (2x4) based on Allendale (I know that's probably not possible)... What would you rather buy?

Q4500 (2.3Ghz) - £90
Q6600 (2.4Ghz) - £155

Except now people seem to think it's worth paying prices in the order of:

The price in brackets is their price in 1000 unit quantities which usually affects price far more than wishful thinking.

They will come in at just under 300 I reckon.
Click to expand...
Q6600 (2.4Ghz, 8MB total L2) - £160 ($266)
Q9300 (2.5Ghz, 6MB total L2) - £170 ($266) ~{ }

Q9450 (2.6Ghz, 12MB total L2) - £210 ($316) - Probably a more reasonable guess.
Q9450 (2.6Ghz, 12MB total L2) - £280 ($316)~{$50 price jump} - 'Just under £300'

Q6700 (2.6Ghz, 8MB total L2) - £350 ($530)
Q9550 (2.8Ghz, 12MB total L2) - £360 ($530)~{$214 price jump}

QX9650{3Ghz, 12MB total L2) - £650 ($999)~{$469 price jump} (English price taken from when they were actually availible)

If the Q9450 cost as much as £300 that'd put the Q9550 up to around £450 with those kinds of price jumps and the QX9650 up to about £900. But now that OcUK knows what kinds of prices you're willing to pay, who knows?
 
Last edited:
I would argue that for gaming a quad isn't worth upgrading to from a duo @3.2 ghz yet.
 
C64 said:
I would argue that for gaming a quad isn't worth upgrading to from a duo @3.2 ghz yet.
Click to expand...

No, but for the folks that do distributed computing its worth it :)

Its probably worth seeing what further info we get on the 20th, especially if we get benchmarks etc. for the quads. If the Q9450 isn't that much better I'll just go with the Q6600.
 
is this q9450 thingy deffinately coming out within the next 3 months then? i need to start planning my upgrade from my athlon 4000+ :P
 
I'm by no means saying that these new quads aren't gonna be decent, they should have a clock-for-clock lead over Kentsfield and be released at higher gigahertz per pound. I'm just making the point that the Q9550 is the one that's gonna be stupidly expensive and off the price/performance track, not the Q9450. Also, the overclocking fun is gonna be had with dual cores, not quads. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom