Q8400 or q9450

Heffer23 · 28 Aug 2009 at 15:46

Simple question whats better Q8400 or Q9450 but bear in mind the cost as well please.
Many thanks

SfnX · 28 Aug 2009 at 15:49

the only difference is the q8400 has a larger dye 65nm and the q9450 is 45nm and the q9450 performs 10% better...thats it. if u wanna oc then go q9450 but for a lower cost the q8400 is gr8

Heffer23 · 28 Aug 2009 at 16:59

What about the Q6600 compared to these two.
Is it in the same league?

sulli · 28 Aug 2009 at 17:18

SfnX said:
the only difference is the q8400 has a larger dye 65nm and the q9450 is 45nm and the q9450 performs 10% better...thats it. if u wanna oc then go q9450 but for a lower cost the q8400 is gr8

check details before u post both are 45nm, ones a quad one is a dual.

Heffer23 · 28 Aug 2009 at 17:25

Seriously......... which is which, I want quad?

BIGBC · 28 Aug 2009 at 17:39

sulli said:
check details before u post both are 45nm, ones a quad one is a dual.

Maybe you should do some reading.
They are both quads.

Q8400 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-281-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567
45nm 2.66GHz 4MB

Q9450 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-215-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567
45nm 2.66GHz 12MB

Both Yorkfields at 2.66GHz stock, would appear only obvious difference is the Cache. Is 8MB more cache worth £25 ? hmm
Do you intend to do any overclocking ? Is it going as a repalcement for your E6600 in your sig ?

linktoinsanity · 28 Aug 2009 at 19:00

sulli said:
check details before u post both are 45nm, ones a quad one is a dual.

He's wrong but so are you. Both the Q8400 and the Q9450 are 45nm quads. I think you are ge3tting mixed up between the Q8400 and the Dual core E8400.

@ OP: The Q9xxx series cpus have more cache memory then the Q8xxx processors so you pay for the cache. The higher cache = better performance. I'd go for the Q9450 if I were you.

Heffer23 · 30 Aug 2009 at 10:39

Yeah I'm looking to replace my E6600.
I can't afford a complete i7 upgrade just yet as I spent £1800 in Jan 07 to get to a fairly awesome rig back then.
The only thing is Arma II & Op FP - Dragon Rising are high on my list & I wanna beef the CPU to cope (have just successfully bidded on a 2nd 8800GTX to go SLI)
So back to the CPU's I think I'm gonna have to go for the Q6600, as its quad, very OC'able & won't bust the bank as much as the others.
Thanks for your advice though.......... not sure in the end who was telling me correct info & who was not

)
Gotta be honest I thought both Q8400 & Q9450 were quads, wanted to make sure though as sulli threw me a little

reflux · 30 Aug 2009 at 10:46

Get the Q9450 - the lack of cache on the Q8400 hobbles it bigstyle.

But the Q6600 is still a good choice, as long as your overclock it.

easyrider · 30 Aug 2009 at 18:02

Heffer23 said:
Simple question whats better Q8400 or Q9450 but bear in mind the cost as well please.
Many thanks

The Q9450 is the better CPU the Quad with 4mb cache should be avoided.

If I were you I would look for a used Q6600..Its a superb CPU for the money and you could get one for around 80-100

Lanz · 31 Aug 2009 at 09:35

The Q8xxx also doesn't have Intel VT, so no Hyper-V or Windows XP Mode in 2008/Win7.

McstylisT · 31 Aug 2009 at 10:06

Go with the Q9450. The Q6600 was a fine CPU but for the money you would pay you might as well save the little extra and go Q9450. I was going to suggest the Q9550 but it's probably over your budget.

The Q9450 will be a good investment , if the price is right. Do not pay too much.

McT

timefalls · 31 Aug 2009 at 14:07

+1 for the Q9450. I got one a few weeks ago and it flies. Straight to 3GHz, and i managed to drop the voltage to 1v!

Heffer23 · 3 Sep 2009 at 13:37

Cheers all, very sound advice

Please consider this thread closed

Again, many thanks to all

Minstadave · 3 Sep 2009 at 17:26

sulli said:
check details before u post both are 45nm, ones a quad one is a dual.

Lovely friendly posting style! :confused:

Did you go for the Q9450 Heffer, its a cracking CPU and not a bad price at all this week.

Heffer23 · 21 Sep 2009 at 22:00

Hi,
Still trying to get hold of one on ebay.
By one I mean either a:
Q6600
Q9450
QX9700
QX9800

)
Any will do if I can get it at sub 100 bucks

Stonedofmoo · 22 Sep 2009 at 08:02

Q9450 all the way. As said you'll be able to overclock it and even undervolt!
Plus it will perform a lot better than the Q8400 as you can see from this direct comparison of the two:-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=51&p2=89

gurusan · 22 Sep 2009 at 08:05

lol at people posting when they have no idea what they are on about.

Anyway grab the Q9450, 12mb of cache is a good thing.

However I would not dismiss the Q9400 as it has 6mb of cache which is enough IMO...however if you have the cash the Q9450 is worth it.

Heffer23 · 22 Sep 2009 at 08:27

A tad harsh me thinks......... we all started somewhere

I remember it wasn't that long ago when you couldn't even walk or talk !!!

But thanks for the info anyhooooo

cmndr_andi · 22 Sep 2009 at 08:34

Hold on a second lads,the OP is using a 680i motherboard. I was under the impression that these boards didn't support 45nm Quads such as the Q8400 or Q9450, just the Kentsfield 65nm ones like the Q6600 and Q6700. And even then they were less then stellar and didn't overclock particularly well (with a quad core, OC was fine for dual core).