• 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 vs Q9450

wolvers

wolvers

wolvers

Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2005
Posts
5,141
Location
In........cognito
Thinking of getting a quad and can't decide whether it's worth spending the extra on a Yorkfield.

Clock for clock, the q9450 should be slightly faster but would it be worth the extra cash? I mean it's quite a lot more, even if it comes down a little after initial release.

Also, would the Q9450 would run cooler at the equivalent speed and voltage because it's 45nm?
 
I was pondering the same thing, and decided to just go for the q6600, which I did 2 weeks ago. It's now flying at 3.6 on 1.35v. I just couldn't justify the extra cash (nearly £100), and I couldn't be bothered to wait until they actually come into stock.
 
surely you can't compare them? maybe its because no-one in their right mind would run a Q6600 at stock so we've all forgotten, but its stock clock is only 2.4GHz?

nevertheless, the yorkfield architecture is, clock-for-clock, more efficient than the Kentsfield architecture, so at equal clocks, a Q9xxx would be faster than a Q6600
 
Aod said:
surely you can't compare them? maybe its because no-one in their right mind would run a Q6600 at stock so we've all forgotten, but its stock clock is only 2.4GHz?

nevertheless, the yorkfield architecture is, clock-for-clock, more efficient than the Kentsfield architecture, so at equal clocks, a Q9xxx would be faster than a Q6600
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there are lots of people running Q6600's at stock speeds.........

Nevertheless, what I was thinking was say, both chips @3ghz. They're both capable of that and as they're running the same multiplier then the fsb would be the same right?

So, the Q9450 would be faster you say, but by 100 quids worth? That's my question. And as -iceblade^ says, if the Yorkfield doesn't overclock as well (links to benchies if anyone has them please) then is the Q6600 the best buy?
 
They're not running the same multiplier, the q6600 is x9 and the q9450 is x8, therefore the oc potential is limited vs the q6600.
 
Clock for clock, it is better. It also has some enhancements and extra instructions. For people running at stock (not most of the people in here!) it will definitely be a better chip. I'm sure with the right memory (ddr3) and motherboard, you'll be able to clock these as high as the q6600, you'll just have to pay about twice the price, or more to do it.
 
just because it has a lower max multi, it doesn't nessesarily mean that its worse. the lower multi means that you're forced to have a higher FSB, which will improve performance a fair bit, especially when you consider that communication between the two "Cores" (the two individual dies) is via the FSB :)
 
in graysky's guide to OCing (the OCing bible as far as i am concerned) he said that a high FSB just raises heat... hence why i'd prefer a high multi and a low FSB
 
I'd take the Q9450, INTEL's latest and greatest. If I decided to grab a Q6600 it would be second hand and I put the saving towards the electricity bill I would get from running the old quad.
 
Aod said:
just because it has a lower max multi, it doesn't nessesarily mean that its worse. the lower multi means that you're forced to have a higher FSB, which will improve performance a fair bit, especially when you consider that communication between the two "Cores" (the two individual dies) is via the FSB :)
Click to expand...

Uhhhh, but the Q6600 can be run at a lower multi too?

Nobody wants a quad core going at 450mhz+ on the FSB if they can help it!
 
wolvers69 said:
Thinking of getting a quad and can't decide whether it's worth spending the extra on a Yorkfield.

Clock for clock, the q9450 should be slightly faster but would it be worth the extra cash? I mean it's quite a lot more, even if it comes down a little after initial release.

Also, would the Q9450 would run cooler at the equivalent speed and voltage because it's 45nm?
Click to expand...

At 3.6ghz a Q9450 is like having a 4ghz Q6600

The SS4 Instruction set of the Q9450 sees huge gains in multimedia tasks.

It will need less vcore so in essence will run cooler.
 
Well I think I'm going to see what price the Q9450 settles at. I like the sound of those 'huge gains in multimedia tasks'. :)

The only benchies I could find. They're all running at stock speeds I believe. would have been interesting how they compare at an equal clock speed.
bGRkaJiXmJTK
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that the Q9450 at 3.6Ghz will be like having a Q6600 at 4Ghz actually?

I heard the same claims for the E8XXX series, and the difference was more like 3 to 5% in my own tests.

That's kinda borne out by the table above which shows the Q6700 and Q9450, which are the same clock speed, with a performance difference of about 3% in favour of the Q9450.

So, a Q9450 at 3.6Ghz would be more like a Q6600 at 3.7Ghz?

That table is only the 3dmark06 cpu test though, and I accept that where SSE4 instructions are present, the Q9450 would obviously win out.

It will be interesting to see what performance is like when people on here get their hands of some chips! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom