• 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.

Q9450 certainly faster than a Q6600

Hades

Hades

Hades

Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,757
Location
Surrey
I'm having a mini gaming session with a few friends. One of them has an almost identical system; we both have quad core, 4gb RAM, 8800GTX. His PC has a Q6600 which is mildly overclocked (not sure the exact speed - I'll find out later but he won't comeout of his game to check lol). Mine is the Q9450 running at completely stock speed due to a poor motherboard.

He also has RAID0 while I am running a standard drive.

Mine is beating his into new levels and game loading significantly. It must be the extra cache but I'm quite surprised how much faster mine is in real life.
 
So let me get this straight, you're comparing LOAD times and concluding that one CPU is better than the other on different boards/HD/RAID set-up's ? The only thing that's certain about this post is you're not aware of how flawed your logic is.

Platter density, cluster size, chipset, drivers, drive speed and cache, distribution of files and a whole host of other variables involved have been overlooked and you're using an HD benchmark to compare CPU's. If you want t9o back up your statement get your friend to run benchmarks on his rig then pull the chip and put yours in and do the same, then you can tell us what's fastest in those benchmarks.
 
Last edited:
Avalon said:
So let me get this straight, you're comparing LOAD times and concluding that one CPU is better than the other on different boards/HD/RAID set-up's ? The only thing that's certain about this post is you're not aware of how flawed your logic is.

Platter density, cluster size, chipset, drivers, drive speed and cache, distribution of files and a whole host of other variables involved have been overlooked and you're using an HD benchmark to compare CPU's. If you want t9o back up your statement get your friend to run benchmarks on his rig then pull the chip and put yours in and do the same, then you can tell us what's fastest in those benchmarks.
Click to expand...

No, really can't be bothered. People can take or leave my anecdotal feedback. It might be right or it might be wrong but I really don't care about "backing up my statement" :)
 
Hades said:
No, really can't be bothered. People can take or leave my anecdotal feedback. It might be right or it might be wrong but I really don't care about "backing up my statement" :)
Click to expand...

I have read some BS posts in my time on ocuk but this one takes the biscuit.

The difference clock for clock of a Q6600 and Stock Q9450 is 200mhz

So a 2.8ghz Q9450 perfroms the same as a 3ghz Q6600.

Your analysis is dull,inconculsive and BS:D
 
easyrider said:
I have read some BS posts in my time on ocuk but this one takes the biscuit.

The difference clock for clock of a Q6600 and Stock Q9450 is 200mhz

So a 2.8ghz Q9450 perfroms the same as a 3ghz Q6600.

Your analysis is dull,inconculsive and BS:D
Click to expand...

I am sorry I am not as l33t as you ;)
 
Tbf 200mhz is a bit of a generalisation. The Q9450 is 8-10% faster clock-for-clock, and that's before the extra cache and instruction sets are taken into account (neither of which should have any real effect on level loading).


I found that my RAID'ed Raptors made a far greater difference to level loading times than either CPU did.
 
Having had both a q6600 and a q9550 clocked at 3.8ghz i noticed very little between them performance wise in games, raided 74gb raptors with the q6600 gave better load times as well, though due to the noise i went back to a single drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom