Who's ditching Q6600 FOR q9450?

[J.T]

Sorry to be a bit of a noob here but to save me reading the whole thread could someone answer this for me please...

Is it worth getting a Q9450 over a Q6600 if you are not planning on overclocking it???

 

[easyrider]

Sorry to be a bit of a noob here but to save me reading the whole thread could someone answer this for me please...

Is it worth getting a Q9450 over a Q6600 if you are not planning on overclocking it???

Clock for clock the Q9450 is faster by around 400 mhz and has more cache.

 

[easyrider]

It's not the current motherboards limitations, it's an FSB wall on the ES chips. Retail chips *might* not be so limited.

Well if that true I am even more excited jumping ship.

 

[J.T]

Clock for clock the Q9450 is faster by around 400 mhz and has more cache.

Thanks, I will take that as a "Yes it is worth it".

 

[Hesky82]

Easy only says it’s faster, but doesn’t actually say if it is worth it or not, that’s for you to decide. That extra 400mhz will cost you £88.13, some people will say that’s to much of a premium to pay and others will say otherwise

 

[J.T]

Good point, is that 400mhz per core though or 100mhz per core making a total of 400mhz???

 

[weescott]

It's UPTO 400mhz clock for clock faster than a Q6600. For some apps it is only 100-200mhz faster. Encoding and rendering see the biggest gains.

 

[marscay]

day to day i doubt an average user currently over 3ghz on a Q6600 would notice the difference apart from benchmarks.

heavy encoders and the like would probably get great benefit out of one, for almost everyone else it's just something to buy/play with.

 

[easyrider]

Thanks, I will take that as a "Yes it is worth it".

Depend on how you use your PC.

I do loads of video editing using Adobe suites that support SS4 instructions

so the gains are worth it for me.

Its a cooler running chip and uses less power and has more cache so for the

65 its going to cost me to upgrade after the sale of my Q6600 its worth it.

 

[easyrider]

Good point, is that 400mhz per core though or 100mhz per core making a total of 400mhz???

Clock for clock so a 4ghz Q6600 is like a 3.6ghz Q9450 depending on

software environment.

 

[easyrider]

day to day i doubt an average user currently over 3ghz on a Q6600 would notice the difference apart from benchmarks.

heavy encoders and the like would probably get great benefit out of one, for almost everyone else it's just something to buy/play with.

That can be said about a 4.2ghx 8400 and a 3.8ghz E6600 too.

At these kinds of speeds, in truth not huge gains are found.

So I agree.For me even if I only get 3.6ghz out of Q9450 I still see it as an

upgrade over my 24/7 3.8ghz Q6600.

But I also get a new chip to play with

That and resale value

 

[nightmare99]

Slighty OT

I believe due to forthcoming shortages of 45nm quads Intel are planning to keep the Q6600 on at a lower price point, on 24th feb they will reduce it by $20 and then further in april.

 

[MR.B]

Do you guys reckon a Q9550 will usually clock better than the Q9450 with it's lower multi?

 

[Darryl_1983]

Both cpu's will be capable of the same overclock speed, the limiting factor is the motherboards capability to produce the fsb need to get there.

 

[weescott]

Do you guys reckon a Q9550 will usually clock better than the Q9450 with it's lower multi?

ES chips suggest that they both have the same FSB wall. So no, one will not clock better than the other, just to a higher end speed.

Both cpu's will be capable of the same overclock speed, the limiting factor is the motherboards capability to produce the fsb need to get there.

That is wrong! The Q9550 will clock to a higher speed. You are talking about motherboard limits, not the CPU limits.

 

[Darryl_1983]

That is wrong! The Q9550 will clock to a higher speed. You are talking about motherboard limits, not the CPU limits.

No i'm saying the Q9550 and Q9450 are the same cpu with different multis. They're capable of the same overclock speed at the same voltage. But the Q9450 will need higher fsb speeds and therefore will be more restricted by the motherboard than the Q9550.

This is seen with the wolfdale cpus, the cheapest 8200 are reading pretty much the same temps (the ones that seem to read the correct temp anyway) and volts at say 4Ghz as the 8400 and 8500. But obviously need a lot more fsb to get there, and are therefore limited by the motherboard.