Q9300 vs. Q6600 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Overclocking and Modding
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2008, 02:41 PM   #1 (permalink)
Biohazardous
 
nOcLuE98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,673
Default Q9300 vs. Q6600

X-bit labs - The Youngest of Yorkfields: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor Review

Not bad. Seems that there wont be a problem with FSB on the chips, can your mobo keep up?

Lets hope the q9450/q9500 performs the same way.
__________________

__________________
http://www.conquestgraphics.com
nOcLuE98 is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 02:57 PM   #2 (permalink)
Benevolent Cake Despot
 
Merkwürdigeliebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montreal, CANADA
Posts: 1,733
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

if you look through the gaming section, there's no difference at all... in fact the Q6600 beats it in some place... Iunno, with the Q6700 coming down in price in April, and with a 10x multiplier, it seems a lot more appealing... the Q9450 is only .5x more...
__________________

__________________
|Intel Q6600 | 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers | XFX 8800GTS 512 | Gigabyte P35-DS3L | Antec 900 | Antec Neo 500 HE |
Merkwürdigeliebe is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 02:59 PM   #3 (permalink)
Biohazardous
 
nOcLuE98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,673
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

no, the q9400 is only .5 more. the q9450 is 8.5x

I dont know, the motherboard is holding the little thing back.

If the q9450 can drop to some decent prices, I think it will end up the OCers choice. Faster fsb, more cache.. because I am pretty sure the q9450 steps up the cache right?
__________________
http://www.conquestgraphics.com
nOcLuE98 is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:23 PM   #4 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
veedubfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,979
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

The 9450 also has 12mb of cache, the 9300 and 9400 only have 6mb.
__________________
Nothing to see here.
veedubfreak is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:26 PM   #5 (permalink)
Biohazardous
 
nOcLuE98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,673
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

ok thats what I thought.

I think the performance is not bad. I expected this chip to be a flop because of the 7.5 multi, but I think it did rather well for the slowest, smallest cache, and smallest multi chip. I really hope the price of the q9450 is not bad. I am guessing it will be up around 450-500 though...
__________________
http://www.conquestgraphics.com
nOcLuE98 is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
veedubfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,979
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

9450 is supposed to be around 320 and 9550 around 520. Either way, i think i'm just going to stick it out with my q6600 for now.
Must
Stop
Spending
Money
On
Parts
__________________
Nothing to see here.
veedubfreak is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:43 PM   #7 (permalink)
Mod Emeritus
 
b1gapl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 13,044
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubfreak View Post
9450 is supposed to be around 320 and 9550 around 520. Either way, i think i'm just going to stick it out with my q6600 for now.
Must
Stop
Spending
Money
On
Parts
Mind over matter veedub...

Save it for the next thing. Just think to yourself, whenever you're about to purchase another part, "Hey, my computer is better than all of the PCs here."
__________________


3770K | ASUS STRIX GTX 1080 | DDR3-1600 16GB | CORSAIR 650D | CORSAIR HX 850W | CORSAIR H100 | SOUND BLASTER Z | ASROCK EXTREME4 GEN3

b1gapl is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:49 PM   #8 (permalink)
Benevolent Cake Despot
 
Merkwürdigeliebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montreal, CANADA
Posts: 1,733
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

Quote:
Originally Posted by nOcLuE98 View Post
no, the q9400 is only .5 more. the q9450 is 8.5x

I dont know, the motherboard is holding the little thing back.

If the q9450 can drop to some decent prices, I think it will end up the OCers choice. Faster fsb, more cache.. because I am pretty sure the q9450 steps up the cache right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkwürdigliebe View Post
Q9450 FSB = 1333MHz

QDR = 1333MHz/4 = 333.25MHz

333.25MHz x 8 (multiplier) = 2666MHz = 2.66GHz

If the Q9450 had an 8.5x multiplier, its default clock would be 2.83GHz, which it's not, the Q9550 has an 8.5x multiplier and it's got a default clock of 2.83GHz. Look for yourself:



VR-Zone : Technology Beats - Intel Desktop CPUs Price Cut Schedule


List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah more L2, I know... but whatever, I don't think there'll be a major difference over 8MB and 12MB to be quite honest
__________________
|Intel Q6600 | 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers | XFX 8800GTS 512 | Gigabyte P35-DS3L | Antec 900 | Antec Neo 500 HE |
Merkwürdigeliebe is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 03:57 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
veedubfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,979
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

6mb. The q6xxx have 8, the low end q9xxx have 6, and the higher end have 12mb. And cache makes a huge difference until the new architecture does away with FSB.
__________________
Nothing to see here.
veedubfreak is offline  
Old 03-14-2008, 04:05 PM   #10 (permalink)
Benevolent Cake Despot
 
Merkwürdigeliebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montreal, CANADA
Posts: 1,733
Default Re: q9300 vs q6600

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubfreak View Post
6mb. The q6xxx have 8, the low end q9xxx have 6, and the higher end have 12mb. And cache makes a huge difference until the new architecture does away with FSB.
I know, I was reffering to the Q9450 vs the Q6600...

Considering that the Q6600 is about $100 cheaper on average, the Q6600 still beats it out for value, some Q9450s are almost $400... the Q9300 is going for about $310... the price and low multi is just not doing it for these processors. I mean, in those reviews, the only benefit I see is if you're into encoding and the likes - but in gaming there's no improvement whatsoever, and as for the cache, I don't see it helping in games....
__________________

__________________
|Intel Q6600 | 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers | XFX 8800GTS 512 | Gigabyte P35-DS3L | Antec 900 | Antec Neo 500 HE |
Merkwürdigeliebe is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
*The Official Tech-Forums 3DMark06/03 Rankings* gurusan Overclocking and Modding 4250 04-02-2015 12:23 PM
Q6600: G0 Stepping vs B3 Stepping 96z28 New Systems | Building and Buying 17 02-26-2008 12:45 PM
q6600 for gaming and OC Riznarf New Systems | Building and Buying 37 06-19-2007 10:12 PM
Overclocking a q6600 Riznarf New Systems | Building and Buying 2 06-04-2007 02:42 AM
Cheapest Q6600 Build Gumbercules New Systems | Building and Buying 34 06-01-2007 01:01 AM



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.