Q9450 or Q6600

[WillSpengler]

At the price difference is the Q9450 that much better than the Q6600?

I've heard the Q9450 can't be overclocked as easily or as well as the Q6600.

I'm putting a new system together, but it will only need to be for the next 12-18 months as when the nehalem processors are avalible, i'd like to make use of them (should be a big jump in power ).

Sorry if this is a daft question, just a newbie here!

 

[Mojo]

tbh at the moment due to supply the Q9XXX range is too expensive for what you get. Admittedly it's probably slightly faster clock for clock (judging from posts on here), but it only has a 8x multi which makes overclocking harder, as well as (If you're planning on clocking the nuts off it) making the greater efficiency a slightly moot point

 

[WillSpengler]

Hmm, well im leaning more and more towards the Q6600.

Would this give a big difference over my current processor which is a 3.0 Ghz P4 prescott core?

(obv getting a whole new setup aswell, new mobo, 3 gigs of ram, 8800 GT, new HDDs (2x160Gb raid0 and 2x500Gb raid1) aswell as sata optical drives)

 

[jak731]

the difference may depend on what you are doing.

if using it for word, then i doubt it will be much difference. however if encoding, you should see a massive difference

 

[ShaoliN.uK]

you also got to remember the Q6600 FSB is 1066 and the Q9450 is 1333, so thou it might not achieve a super high OC like the Q6600 it will be able to achieve a more sensible overclock easier.

 

[WillSpengler]

the difference may depend on what you are doing.

if using it for word, then i doubt it will be much difference. however if encoding, you should see a massive difference

I realise that

It will be used mainly for recording audio and games. (well, will be used for word etc too, but that isnt going to be any faster )