Q6600 now or wait for Q9450 or E8400?

[mestizo73]

I was planning on picking up a Q9450 in January, but since they are delayed my question is do i get the Q6600 now or wait til Q9450 is released? I will mainly using video editing programs and nerovision to convert downloaded avi movies to dvd.

 

[yamahazr]

i personally choose q9450 since it cost cheaper than q6600.the 45nm produce less heat and can oc higher.it's worth to wait...

 

[mestizo73]

thats what i am wanting to do, i know the 45nm will be cooler running and more overclockable, but i have the money now and feb or march is a long wait.

 

[T8RR8R]

What CPU, Memory, and Mobo do you have right now?

 

[cnumartyr]

thats what i am wanting to do, i know the 45nm will be cooler running and more overclockable, but i have the money now and feb or march is a long wait.

Q9450 is not going to OC higher than the Q6600 because of the multiplier unless by some grace of Intel the FSB wall on Yorkfield is a lot higher than Kentsfield (and judging by the QX9650 it isn't).

Penryn is around 7% faster clock for clock.

400x8 = 3.2 GHz x 1.07 = 3.424
400x9 = 3.6 GHz > 3.424

I'll be buying another G0 rather than buying any Yorkfields.

 

[T8RR8R]

I think it'd OC better because of the fact that there is less of a heat restriction on the FSB.

 

[mestizo73]

yeah thats one thing that has me thinking is the multiplier. currently i have a E6600, gigabyte p35 ds4 mobo, and OCZ ddr 800 2x 1gb rev. 2.

 

[roadrunner197069]

The Yorkfield most definately will overclock higher. Kentsfields is simply limited by heat.

The Q6600 has a 1066FSB stock clock of 266.5x9=2.4 rounded up.

Penryns have a 1333FSB stock. Qx6950 for example has a default of 333.25x9= 3.0 rounded up.

My e2180 has a 800FSB 200x10=2.0 Mine is overcloked to 333x10= 3300 or 3.33. 3300/4= my new FSB is 1332.
Stock q6600 runs at 266x9= 2.4 rounded.

The Penryns will clock to 4.0 like nobodys buisness. The average q6600 runs 3.2, some higher some lower, so I use an average.

Penryn at 333.25x9=3.0 idle in the low 20c. To achieve 4.0 one would need 444x9=4.0 rounded. That is only 111 more FSB than stock. 111 more on a cool running chip with decent air cooling should be a given.

However; you will need a mobo that can support 1800mhz FSB to get to 4.0 or higher. Cheaper boards that run 1300mhz FSB will be pushing it to run a penryn at stock speed.

My P5K SE supports up to 1333, "stock speed of penryn" so when I upgrade if I want to overclock, I got to get a new mobo as well.

Some boards might work higher then they are rated, but they probably wont last long.

 

[mestizo73]

so would i just be better off getting the Q6600? i will overclock, but nothing extreme in the neighborhood of 3.0 - 3.4.

 

[gamebro]

Q9450 is not going to OC higher than the Q6600 because of the multiplier unless by some grace of Intel the FSB wall on Yorkfield is a lot higher than Kentsfield (and judging by the QX9650 it isn't).

Penryn is around 7% faster clock for clock.

400x8 = 3.2 GHz x 1.07 = 3.424
400x9 = 3.6 GHz > 3.424

I'll be buying another G0 rather than buying any Yorkfields.

yeah that's the first I've heard of that, and that definitely does not sound right. The Q9450 should definitely get to 3.6-4.0 and beyond on air cooling alone, and I've heard that statement from reputable sites and many other users, so I think, and HOPE you are wrong... If you are right, then I might as well overclock myself on weed so that when I use the Q9450, I think it is going really really fast, when it isn't........... or would that be an underclock? Yeah that's it!

 

[gamebro]

I was planning on picking up a Q9450 in January, but since they are delayed my question is do i get the Q6600 now or wait til Q9450 is released? I will mainly using video editing programs and nerovision to convert downloaded avi movies to dvd.

Almost forgot to address your question, with another of my own...

The title of this thread mentions the E8400, yet your post did not.... I too am becoming more interested in that chip especially now that the Q9450 is delayed a month or 2.... In many benchmarks, quad core does not help over dual cores, so for the right price I probably wouldn't mind settling for a E8400 especially since it will still be coming out on time. Though I too would like to here more advice on that from some more knowledgeable users here.

We know quads will be the way to go in the future..... But when? 2 years? Crysis seams to perform the same on dual or quads, as it is limited by GPU power, not processing power. Is this the trend we'll see continue as new games get released?
Gah..... I hate waiting, but it's like...... might as well!!! Geforce 9800 is coming out in Feb anyways Sure I can buy a computer now..... Only to play crysis in high settings, when the game can scale to very high with AA ect... SCOTTY! WE NEED MORE POWER!

 

[randomizer]

Do you really need the power?

EDIT: What am I talking about, I think the video editing thing missed my retinas.

 

[roadrunner197069]

Q9300 is listed as $266 running at 2.5GHZ. Basically Q6600 cone to 45nm. The best stable over clock I predict on it will be 3.4. Why you ask? Intel jacked us with only a 7.5 multiplier. Overclocking to 1800FSB which will require one hell of a motherboard will give you 450x7.5=3375 or 3.4. Q9450 $316 should run 3.6. Q9550 $530 should run 3.8. Notice this is on a 1800 mhz FSB overclock, which most of us dont even have the hardware to do.

 

[roadrunner197069]

The one I want to try is the e4700. Its still Allendale but it has a 13x multi. A 1300 MHZ FSB OC would run 4.3. $133.00

 

[gamebro]

Well... Just wait a minute here...... You people mean to tell me that there is basically no way in hell the Q9450 will get to 4ghz because no motherboard can go high enough on the FSB?

Can more people elaborate on this, if that is indeed the case?

 

[thepinkpanther]

isnt the Q9xxx gonna be delayed because of amds phenom?

 

[roadrunner197069]

It only has an 8x multiplier. Inte got smart after everyone figure out the conroes could oc faster then a stock extreme and no one wanted extremes anymore. So basically the lower the multi and put a stop to it. Your majority of board support 1333 FSB so most people wont even beable to go that high. You will need a board that supports 1800 MHZ FSB.

I am very disappointed in Intel. These chips have way more potential. They are just waiting for AMD to think they caught up and then they will release new chips with higher multipliers. Its actually a pretty good stragedy for them. It lets them be even 1 more step above AMD. All the reviews I've read on the extreme 9650 it seems as the FSB wall is 450 which is exactly 1800 FSB. Most reviews are getting 450x10= 4.5. I for one wont pay $1000 for a cpu though.

I dont want to spend $300+ dollars on a 1800FSB capable board just to run the speed of a Q6600 with a $100 mobo.

Lets all but Phenom so Intel will take the next step. This is BS.

 

[roadrunner197069]

Thats what they say.

 

[jaguarskx]

If you are gonna do video encoding because SSE4 will improve encoding performance, then wait for Penryn.

Otherwise just go for the Q6600.

 

[gamebro]

It only has an 8x multiplier. Inte got smart after everyone figure out the conroes could oc faster then a stock extreme and no one wanted extremes anymore. So basically the lower the multi and put a stop to it. Your majority of board support 1333 FSB so most people wont even beable to go that high. You will need a board that supports 1800 MHZ FSB.

I guess this is the evil darkside everybody warned Intel would become if AMD went under lol.
So would it be possible to mod the Q9450 to unlock multipliers? If not, how will the penryn Dual cores do for overclocking? Will they be as neutered?

 

[nukchebi0]

You don't need to rush to a Q6600 if you have an E6600 right now. You are spoiled if you can't wait three months with what you have.

 

[randomizer]

@gamebro: You are asking for Golden Gates again? C'mon man, this isn't 2001 anymore.

 

[JuiceJones]

Video encoding heavily benefits from more cores. If the scheduled launch was still January, I'd wait, but with the delay, I think I'd spring for the Q6600.

It's a matter of having nearly 2x encode speed now and for the next three months, or 1x encode speed for the next three months and then maybe 2.2x performance. Not really worth the wait if this is something you do frequently.

 

[randomizer]

You could get a Q6600 now and ebay it and get a Q9450 later.

 

[gamebro]

LOL random, I remember helping my dad bridging on his old athlon chip to unlock it, not something I'd want to try on my own chip! =D

Ok,,,, I just spent the last few hours doing searches and researches..... I have been waiting like 6 months for the Penryn, namely the Q9450, and now that I realize it is indeed limited by a 8x multi, and most mobos are not going to get to 500FSB. Roadrunner, and Cnumartyr were right!........ So yeah, I have given up all hope for that chip now... A Q6600 would be nearly as good, for like the next year or so

I have decided, after all this waiting, to say screw it and go with a E8400 wolfdale when they come out in like 2 weeks. They have a multi of x9, and 1 site review already got em to 4ghz without even trying lol.
http://en.expreview.com/?p=68&page=1

And after seeing games like Crysis, and how it doesn't really benefit from more then 2 cores (limited by GPU much more then CPU) I am having strong doubts that I'd be very happy with a quad core anytime soon, since I game 90% of the time. Games probably won't properly use quads until we have Octa cores available.... And lord knows how long it'll be until games properly use those!

I'd much rather have a dual core that goes to 4ghz then a quad that only goes to 3.6 or less, until games actually do put them extra 2 cores to good use..... Sound good?
I was an ignorant fool, and you fellows have once again, enlightened me with your expansive insight.... or something like that.... I love these forums =D