I read from Wiki that the Q9300 has 2x 3Mb L2 cache so that's half of what Q9450 has, but then the chart above shows it has full 2x 6Mb so I don't know which is true.
-
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?
- Thread starter steve258
- Start date
I read from Wiki that the Q9300 has 2x 3Mb L2 cache so that's half of what Q9450 has, but then the chart above shows it has full 2x 6Mb so I don't know which is true.
NO.
That will be FSB limited when clocking.
The q6600 will be a faster CPU when clocked.
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.
Yorkfield is around 400mhz faster clock for clock than Kentsfield but the lower multi's will be a problem.
3.6ghz Yorkfield = 4ghz Q6600
With a 7.5 multi on a decent board you’re looking at 3.7ghz max with a Q9300, also has less cache than a Q6600 and looks like it will costing more to.
While you're not wrong, 10% would be a more accurate ball-park figure across the full scale.
Everyone is fussing over which chip to get etc, but I'm looking very heavily at the current and upcoming motherboards as they will definitely be the limiting factor with these low multi, budget Quad's.