Who's ditching Q6600 FOR q9450?

Willis · 11 Feb 2008 at 07:58

I have a QX6700 @ 3.5 so i'm going to stick with that for now but keeping a keen eye on the OC's on theses chips. Just seems like a lot of money to get a bit more GHz because I would have to also upgrade my Motherboard and maybe my RAM

tatts · 11 Feb 2008 at 08:06

easyrider said:
4ghz for Q6600 24/7 was rare.

SS4 instructions and the extra cache all make it worthwhile imo.

even so, 3.6GHZ 24/7 can be done by nearly everyone & a Q9450 @ 3.6GHZ will be very close.
personally i wouldnt buy anything for the extra cache after the results with conroe chips like the E21XX & E68xx but i suppose if you wanna spend an extra £100 or so for abit of willy waving then i see no problem aslong as you post back with very good results to proove me wrong

Hesky82 · 11 Feb 2008 at 08:07

Willis said:
I have a QX6700 @ 3.5 so i'm going to stick with that for now but keeping a keen eye on the OC's on theses chips. Just seems like a lot of money to get a bit more GHz because I would have to also upgrade my Motherboard and maybe my RAM

what mb and ram do you run Will?

Hesky82 · 11 Feb 2008 at 08:07

1st double post ever

Willis · 11 Feb 2008 at 08:12

Hesky82 said:
what mb and ram do you run Will?

Asus P5W DH Deluxe and 4GB of GeIL PC2-6400C4 with a Tuniq Tower 120 cooling the cpu.

Hesky82 · 11 Feb 2008 at 08:20

Hum, yeah have to agree with you. That lot would more than likely struggle with an fsb happy yorkie.

The Asgard · 11 Feb 2008 at 09:08

I don't think the uprgade is worth the money if you already have a decent good clocking Q6600.

If you take benchmarks and video crunching out of the equation I struggle to tell any difference between 3.0 and 4.0 Ghz in all honesty. The difference is also marginal going from 2 to 4 cores. In games it will make zero difference unless you play at 800x600.

I run my Q6600 G0 at 3.0 @ 1.1v

It will do 3.6 @1.36 and nearly 4 @ 1.55.

IMHO your far better off investing the difference in a better GPU.

Perfect_Chaos · 11 Feb 2008 at 09:51

The Asgard said:
The difference is also marginal going from 2 to 4 cores. In games it will make zero difference unless you play at 800x600.

how can more cores affect game speed when hardly any are multithreaded at the moment? :confused:

its just the speed of the processor at that resolution

gurusan · 11 Feb 2008 at 09:53

I have recently downgraded from a Q6600 to an e6300 and in UT3 the difference was very significant.

Perfect_Chaos · 11 Feb 2008 at 10:02

gurusan said:
I have recently downgraded from a Q6600 to an e6300 and in UT3 the difference was very significant.

For that game im not surprised, i guess you lost a good 15fps

The Asgard · 11 Feb 2008 at 10:21

Perfect_Chaos said:
how can more cores affect game speed when hardly any are multithreaded at the moment? its just the speed of the processor at that resolution

Just a general comment. Desktop, games.

I upgraded to a 150 raptor recently and I noticed that more than I did going from a E6600 to Q6600.

The point I'm making is that the speed doesn't translate into real world benefits for most people unless you have a specific application in mind.

Law of diminishing returns.

gurusan · 11 Feb 2008 at 10:23

Perfect_Chaos said:
For that game im not surprised, i guess you lost a good 15fps

I don't know as I left the 62fps cap on....but it was the difference between a solid 62fps line in Fraps with the quad and the occasional dip to low 40s with the e6300.

I have moved to XP though and it seems as if this made a large difference....framerates only dip to mid-low 50s now which is quite bearable.

The Asgard · 11 Feb 2008 at 10:25

gurusan said:
I don't know as I left the 62fps cap on....but it was the difference between a solid 62fps line in Fraps with the quad and the occasional dip to low 40s with the e6300.

I have moved to XP though and it seems as if this made a large difference....framerates only dip to mid-low 50s now which is quite bearable.

I suspect it was moving to XP that made all the difference.

IceShock · 11 Feb 2008 at 11:38

may i ask somthing about these new cpus and overclocking, why are the multi's so low?! :S

gurusan · 11 Feb 2008 at 11:38

IceShock said:
may i ask somthing about these new cpus and overclocking, why are the multi's so low?! :S

because intel hates us enthusiasts.

PinkFloyd · 11 Feb 2008 at 11:46

manoz said:
Or you could spend the same the same amount you would on the QX to get another Q6600 and make a dedicated matx renderbox

That's not as much fun for benching though

Although it as far more practical and something I'll likely end up doing near hand in dates If I have a lot to render.

IceShock said:
may i ask somthing about these new cpus and overclocking, why are the multi's so low?! :S

Higher fsb, meaning a smaller multi is needed for the same overall clockspeed.

IceShock · 11 Feb 2008 at 11:55

PinkFloyd said:
Higher fsb, meaning a smaller multi is needed for the same overall clockspeed.

Higher multi, meaning a smaller fsb is needed for the same overall clockspeed.

which would equal more able to overclocking corrent? then why not just have somthing like a x14multi, would be a lot better imo

oggmonster · 11 Feb 2008 at 12:01

IceShock said:
then why not just have somthing like a x14multi, would be a lot better imo

because intel hates us enthusiasts.

PinkFloyd · 11 Feb 2008 at 12:05

IceShock said:
Higher multi, meaning a smaller fsb is needed for the same overall clockspeed.

This is what the Q6600 is compared to the new Penryn chips.

The new chips have a lower multi, hence requiring a much higher fsb, and therefore better overclocking RAM + Motherboard

Perfect_Chaos · 11 Feb 2008 at 12:25

gurusan said:
because intel hates us enthusiasts.

Partially right, but also the fact that they want us to spend a fortune on their expensive chips just to get another 200mhz or so :rolleyes: