Q6600 vs. Q9400

[Uniqueuponhim]

From what I've read, for gaming purposes, the difference in cache has absolutely no effect.

 

[Hussein19891]

From what I've read, for gaming purposes, the difference in cache has absolutely no effect.

AMD Quads and Duals have much less cache then their Intel's counterparts. Yet they still seem to do alright in gaming. So cache doesn't really do a lot for gaming.

 

[baron5]

a quad that has 8mb q6600, also is pretty similar to a dual core with less cache. makes sense to make that conclusion i guess..

also i live in australia ur best bet is Online Computer Store - Umart online® Your one stop Computer Shop for computer parts,notebook and new system if your buying a whole system, they have the best prices all over. otherwise use staticICE :: Australia's comprehensive computer hardware and gadget price comparison search engine to search independly to find the best price, one site has it for 390 (q9550)

 

[NosBoost300]

Do you mean 9400? or 9450? The 9400 from my understanding is a cut down crappy version with less cache than the 6600.
Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9400 - SLB6B
Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6600 - SLACR
Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q9450 - SLAWR

I was correct, the q9400 only has 6mb of cache, q6600 has 8, 9450 has 12.

q9400 is the same thing as a q9450, just with the cache cut in half... its not part of the kentsfield family if i remember right

 

[Nagasama]

AMD Quads and Duals have much less cache then their Intel's counterparts. Yet they still seem to do alright in gaming. So cache doesn't really do a lot for gaming.

it doesnt do a lot for AMD chips. because of their IMC, they dont need the big cache. current intel chips, on the other hand, do benefit from larger cache. gaming there is a measurable difference, but in programs that crunch numbers like superpi...there is a massive performance difference.
nehalem will have the IMC, so the cache will be noticeably smaller.