Originally Posted by thirdshiftdj
you don't know what your talking about my friend
Dashing remark, there. You sure showed me with your army of reasons and sources. Your slight upon my ignorance has left me devastated, mutilated, and perforated! I could summarize the next few paragraphs by simply replying "no u" but if you're so inclined, read on.
I suppose I could go the "specifications" route to compare the processors.
Q6600 vs Q9450
Kentsfield vs Yorkfield
2.4GHz vs 2.66GHz (Which means nothing if you overclock, right?)
1066MHz FSB vs 1333MHz FSB
8MB L2 vs 12MB L2
65nm process vs 45nm process (Implies less heat)
SSSE3 vs SSE4
1.5V max needed voltage vs 1.3v max needed voltage (Implies less heat and energy)
105W TDP vs 95W TDP (Heavily
implies less power usage. Sarcasm is positively dripping from this statement)
Of course specs mean nothing to actual usage, right?
Q9450 - Power and Temperature
Overclocked to 3.6GHz, needing 1.1375V
Using an average current of 60A.
Around 50-51 degrees Celsius
Q6600 - Power and Temperature
Overclocked to 3.6GHz, needing 1.2000V
Using an average current of 109A.
Around 60-62 degrees Celsius.
Whoops! The Q6600 is pulling nearly twice as much current as the Q9450 at that speed, while being about 10 degrees Celsius hotter. And look, this table
suggests that even the Q9300 is comparable to the Q6600, having a very slight advantage in every case. Now, don't get me wrong, the Q6600 is a good quad core CPU for relatively inexpensive. Hence my clause: if you can spare a few extra quid
, go for the Q9300 or the Q9450. My line of thinking goes "Cooler, therefore
more stable," but you're welcome to debate it.
Edit: Nice save with the edit there, my friend. Unfortunately, I caught your original post before it was changed, so the damage was still done!