Tom's Hardware Forums » CPU & Components » CPUs » Q6600 now or wait for Q9450 or E8400?
 

Q6600 now or wait for Q9450 or E8400?

Add a reply



 Word :   Username :  
 
 Page :   1  2
Previous 
Author
 Thread : Q6600 now or wait for Q9450 or E8400?
 
Profile: newbie
More Information

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.

Related Pr oduct
Register or log in to remove.

Profile: newbie

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

Profile: newbie
More Information

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.

Profile: old hand
More Information

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


---------------
DFI DK P45 T2RS: e8400: TRUE 120: PowerColor 4870: OCZ Platinum 4GB (2 x 2GB) 1066: Zalman 1000w PSU
Resident Jerk
Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

mestizo73 wrote :

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.


---------------
TeamBAG Member
Profile: old hand
More Information

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


---------------
DFI DK P45 T2RS: e8400: TRUE 120: PowerColor 4870: OCZ Platinum 4GB (2 x 2GB) 1066: Zalman 1000w PSU
Profile: newbie
More Information

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.

Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

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.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by roadrunner 197069 on 12-21-2007 at 04:22:58 AM
Profile: newbie
More Information

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

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

cnumartyr wrote :

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! :ouch:

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

mestizo73 wrote :

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 :pt1cable: 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!


Message edited by gamebro on 12-21-2007 at 05:57:45 AM
*Smacks turpit with a +5 ban stick*
Profile: Forum Veteran
More Information

Do you really need the power?

 

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


Message edited by randomizer on 12-21-2007 at 06:01:09 AM

---------------
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w179/random1301/Ibanezrandom-1.png
Sig art copyright verndewd

Ode to Fanboi: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] l#t1862103
Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

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.

Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

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

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

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?

u get what u pay for
Profile: member
More Information

isnt the Q9xxx gonna be delayed because of amds phenom?


---------------
why have sex when u can play computer games?!?
Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

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.

Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

Thats what they say.

Profile: Forum Veteran
More Information

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

Otherwise just go for the Q6600.


---------------
Q9450 |Corsair XMS 4GB DDR 800 | ABit IP35 Pro | X1900XT 512MB | Audigy 2 | Seasonic S12 550 | Cooler Master Centurion 532 | NEC LCD2690WUXi

There is no such thing as a stupid question.
But there are stupid people.
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

roadrunner197069 wrote :

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.




:sarcastic: 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?

Profile: addict
More Information