Best CPU fan for Q9450

[Darkbonez]

This is my first build and was wondering what the best fan for the Q9450 is(will be overclocking it )

I am pretty sure I will be using the "NZXT Zero" full tower case for this build.

I dont care if it is louder then a rocket taking off to space, i just want the cpu to stay cool.

So if anyone would be kind enough, leave links to what you think is the best CPU cooler out their and what to look for when getting them (for future builds)......THANKS!!!

EDIT: oh oh, i posted in wrong section, sorry

 

[iluvgillgill]

what Ghz you got in mind to overclock it to?

 

[Perp]

If you plan to overclock the Q6600 is a better chip for $100 less.

The consumer grade quads are for PC makers to slap 45nm quad core processor on the outside of the box. They are good chips, but they are not a good choice for overclocking unless you like to pay 50% more for the same performance.

Only the Q9550 (excluding the extreme series) is better than the Q6600 when overclocking, but it comes with a price tag of twice that of a Q6600. Not exactly a bargain.

 

[iluvgillgill]

the Q9450 still good for overclocking.as the new Penryn core give the same performance at lower clock.so if both achieve the same speed then the Q6600 will lose!!!

 

[Perp]

Unless you know you can get your mobo to a stable 500 fsb I'd stick with the 6600.

If your overclock doesn't force you to lower the q6600's multiplier down to 8 from 9 there isn't a compelling reason to get the q9450. Even if you get a stable 475-500 fsb which is tricky with a quad, you are still only looking at an 8% performance gain.

Where the Q6600 becomes the truely no brainer choice is in the 400 fsb range because it's 9x multipier puts it ahead of the Q9450 for less money.

 

[iluvgillgill]

i easily overclock my q6600 on 450x7.so the q9450(8x multipler) can do the same fsb no problem!8x450 how much is that?you tell me.anything under 400fsb any motherboard base on p35 chipset can do it as the extreme run on 1600fsb works on that chipset.

 

[Perp]

Don't blame me though, talk to intel about thier pricing policy. Until there is a consumer grade 45nm quad with a 9x multiplier at a reasonable price the Q6600 will remain the better chip for the money.

 

[Perp]

450x7 is pretty weak for a q6600 when you can run 450x9 on a q6600 for 4ghz

 

[Perp]

Heres a performance breakdown with different FSB speeds and multipliers.


q6600

400x9 = 3.6ghz (winner)
450x8 = 3.6ghz (loser)
450x9 = 4ghz (winner)
500x8 = 4ghz (loser)
500x9 = 4.5ghz (winner)

q9450

400x9 = impossible (loser)
450x8 = 3.6ghz (winner)
450x9 = impossible (loser)
500x8 = 4ghz (winner)
500x9 = impossible (loser)

Even when the Q9450 wins it's only by a margin of 8% that you paid an extra $100 for. So the real question is why bother with a sometimes better chip.

 

[iluvgillgill]

well personally i havent seen anyone apart from 1 or 2 who can ahieve 450x9 on reasonable price mobo.of cause you can achieve that in boards like maximus and striker extreme to ultra expensive chipset.but for people who are using p35 im not so sure.so why is it impossible to run the q9450 on 400x9?any proof?since it run cooler and use less power so it should able to.i havent invest into the q9450 yet.so i will see what you can show me?or is it just your theory of your head!haha

 

[iluvgillgill]

sorry that was a mistake.i mistaken the processor.but anything above 4ghz is not so easy to achieve.have you done it?if no then i would be quiet if i were you!

 

[Perp]

well personally i havent seen anyone apart from 1 or 2 who can ahieve 450x9 on reasonable price mobo.of cause you can achieve that in boards like maximus and striker extreme to ultra expensive chipset.but for people who are using p35 im not so sure.so why is it impossible to run the q9450 on 400x9?any proof?since it run cooler and use less power so it should able to.i havent invest into the q9450 yet.so i will see what you can show me?or is it just your theory of your head!haha

Why would I be quiet?

I've already had my q6600 running faster than the 450x7 you listed.

But it's nice to know you rant about chips you don't even know the multiplier specs for claiming they are superior based on "just your theory of your head". Whatever the hell that means.

Furthermore you are touting the supposed advantage of buying a chip that costs 50% more for the same performance and then make a complaint on the price difference between p35 and the "ultra expensive" chipset boards. You realize how ironic that is? At least the newer more expensive chipset boards give you something tangible like pcie 2.0, raid, ect..... Whereas the processor gives you the same performance for more money. Great decision!

 

[Darkbonez]

Well after reading some of these posts, i might go back to the Q6600. I dont think I will be OC over 4.0 or anything becuase of my noobyness . Quick Q: what does the "L2 Cache" do becuase the Q9450 has L2 Cache 12MB , 2x more than Q6600.

 

[Perp]

It's part of what makes it faster given identical processor speeds along with slightly more efficient internal pipeline.

I certainly don't think the q9450 is a bad chip, it just doesn't justify a higher price. If prices were equal the q9450 would be a good bargain, but it costs 50% more.

I really just disagree with the price gouging and the overall intel pricing/stepping stucture for the 45nm consumer quads compared to the 45nm consumer core 2 duos. In intels defense if they were offering 7,8,9x multipliers for the 45nm consuer quads (instead of 7.5,8,8.5x) it would be even harder to justify purchasing the extreme series quad for anything but vapor phase change, LN, and Dry ice cooling.

 

[Darkbonez]

So the Q9450 is "better" then the Q6600 right? I understand the price issue but i really dont want to have to upgrade something big like a CPU over time. The only reason it might no be as good is becuase of OC?

PS. Sorry for all these questions, i just want to go crazy when i could have gotten this, and not that.

EDIT: I am prob gonna OC either one to 3.6. Sooo for Q9450 at 450x8 and Q6600 at 400x9...which one would get better perforamce?

 

[Evilonigiri]

The Q9450 is better clock for clock, but as Perp has said, the price doesn't justify it's performance nor it's OCing potential when the Q6600 can be had for $200.

 

[SpinachEater]

If you plan to overclock the Q6600 is a better chip for $100 less.

Negative sir. The Q6600 is easier to overclock to higher speeds due to the higher multiplier, but due to the die shrink, lower voltages, larger cache and others... the Q9450 is still a better performer. I would take a lower clocked Q9450 over a higher clocked Q6600 any day. I believe it was THG article that proved that higher clocks don't matter so much these days.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=5
Even the Q9300 smacks the Q6600...there is a 100MHz difference but that doesn't account for all of the 7.4% advantage. What they should have done was clocked the Q6600 to the same as the Q9300 and compared them. You would still see an advantage for the 45nm chip however.

What is this $200 jibber jabber. Are you talking about used chips? I see it as $230 at Tech For Less for the lowest USD pricing. Link it or it isn't true.

EDIT: I am prob gonna OC either one to 3.6. Sooo for Q9450 at 450x8 and Q6600 at 400x9...which one would get better perforamce?

See above. Q9450 will be best if you can spend the money on it. Performance / dollar...now that is a different story. Plus make sure you have a good mobo that will be stable at that FSB.

Edit: Dive into that Anandtech article a little further and you will see the Q9300 doing better than the Q6600 in games. That should set some high standards for the Q9450 vs Q6600. BUT...performance / dollar does favor the Q6600 compared to the Q9300.

Edit 2: Ouch the tech for less price is even an open box. I am curious where the $200 Q6600 is.
http://www.techforless.com/cgi-bin/tech4less/BX80562Q6600?id=PepATk6v&mv_pc=101

Edit 3: Hahaha, I got lost in the rest of the posts and forgot you were looking for a CPU cooler. I guess that happens to all of us. I would check out FrostyTech and consider any of the ones on the Top 10 list (but strangely called the top 5...?). The Thermalright Ultra is probably the most popular HS these days. You can't go wrong with that one. I got the Xigmatek based on their review but I can't comment on the performance since I don't have it set up yet...but the point is...FrostyTech is a good source to look at.

 

[Darkbonez]

Thanks man, *just a few seconds ago i said i would go with the Q6600 in another post*, you have changed my mind . This is my first build anyways so OC to high numbers wont come for awhile. oh and you are the first one to catch the CPU cooler i found it was wrong section so its fine it was ignored, im going with TRUE anyways, THANKS

 

[SpinachEater]

Well it sounds like you are flip flopping a lot. Just make sure you are choosing the hardware for the right reasons. If you have strict spending limits, the 45nms are a tough cookie to swallow at the moment and make the 65nms look a lot more appealing.

As said above though, clock for clock the 45nms have better performance so if you can bend over and take one from the pricing, why not. Edit: If you can tolerate bending over and taking one that is.

Something else to consider is in general where you can put your money to get better over all gains. Could you save some money on the CPU and then put it towards a better GPU where in the end you will get better overall gaming performances? That is something to consider as well. Determining what your system will be used for is very important as well as how much you want to upgrade after this and what your budget is.

 

[iluvgillgill]

well expensive board doesnt mean always the best option to go for.and the new 45nm Penryn core get better performance/watt.if you want pure "speed" than you just get the Pentium 630!over 4.5G easily.its about performance/watt these days.
and why you believe no board can achieve high fsb?the p5k-e is by no mean a expensive top end board.and it is so popular!why?because it is possible to do over 450fsb on p35 chipset.and dont evn mention about P45.its going to be easier as it supports 1600 by standard.

 

[Evilonigiri]

I think to us OCers, it's more about performance/clock instead of performance/watt. Anyways, setting high FSB places strain on the motherboard, meaning shorter life. I get the feeling that the mobo's life is shorter than the cpu, after all most of the warranties out there are only 1year long.

 

[iluvgillgill]

well if you want to keep your warranty then dont overclock at then!no?

 

[Evilonigiri]

No, that wasn't the point. The point is, motherboards lasts shorter than cpus, so stressing the motherboard too much is a bad idea. And anything above 450MHz is considered stressing a lot.

 

[Perp]

Personally I'd rather kill the mobo or cpu in 12-18 months as a reason to upgrade.

As for spinacheaters position on the q6600? He nailed it in the first sentence. The q6600 is easier to overclock. His argument really falls apart though when he starts stating review which compare the chips at comperable speeds. While this is important for showing the advancements of the interal workings of the chip it isn't a true comparison of real world overclocking potential where the lower multiplier really makes the q9300 and q9450 harder to work with. Hence most people will gladly take a q6600 over a q9300 at even money. The q9450 about pulls even with the q6600 but at a much higher price. Only the q9550 is clearly superior to the q6600 but at over twice the price.

 

[Farinhir]

Sigh,

It is sad that people thinking about performance do not understand that there is much more to how fast a chip is than its potential hz. I still remember the case made by the AMD Athlon XP series of chips. Running as good as a faster clocked Intel. Some things to think about when considering how well these two chips can compare are clock speed, max locked multiplier (yes it is a factor), power consumption in watts, power consumption in volts (important for overclocked temps especially), what percent over stock voltage a chip can stand, L1/L2 caches, and more.

One person made mention that they want "performance/clock". If that is so, then going with the chip that can run faster on lower hz, with lower voltage (and temps) would be preferable. This does not mean that the max potential hz of the Q9450 is going to be higher than the Q6600. What it means is that even if you are not able to attain the similar clock speeds, you will probably still outperform the Q6600 as it will be running hotter, with a slower FSB, and with less L2 cache.

The only reasons I could see in going with the Q6600 over the Q9450 is pricing, or wanting the "I got my system running XGhz for 5 minutes before it burned my house down" bragging rights.