Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 now or wait for Q9450 or E8400?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 20, 2007 11:50:47 PM

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.

More about : q6600 wait q9450 e8400

December 21, 2007 12:19:24 AM

i personally choose q9450 since it cost cheaper than q6600.the 45nm produce less heat and can oc higher.it's worth to wait...
December 21, 2007 12:27:17 AM

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.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 21, 2007 12:28:53 AM

What CPU, Memory, and Mobo do you have right now?
December 21, 2007 12:29:04 AM

mestizo73 said:
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.
December 21, 2007 12:31:36 AM

I think it'd OC better because of the fact that there is less of a heat restriction on the FSB.
December 21, 2007 12:32:50 AM

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.
December 21, 2007 1:19:02 AM

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.
December 21, 2007 1:29:12 AM

so would i just be better off getting the Q6600? i will overclock, but nothing extreme in the neighborhood of 3.0 - 3.4.
December 21, 2007 2:46:05 AM

cnumartyr said:
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: 
December 21, 2007 2:56:45 AM

mestizo73 said:
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!
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 2:58:34 AM

Do you really need the power?

EDIT: What am I talking about, I think the video editing thing missed my retinas.
December 21, 2007 3:03:02 AM

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.
December 21, 2007 3:08:26 AM

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
December 21, 2007 3:39:24 AM

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?
December 21, 2007 3:49:49 AM

isnt the Q9xxx gonna be delayed because of amds phenom?
December 21, 2007 3:50:00 AM

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.
a c 471 à CPUs
December 21, 2007 4:31:12 AM

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

Otherwise just go for the Q6600.
December 21, 2007 5:00:52 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
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?

December 21, 2007 6:05:21 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 6:07:55 AM

@gamebro: You are asking for Golden Gates again? C'mon man, this isn't 2001 anymore.
December 21, 2007 6:17:39 AM

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.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 6:45:02 AM

You could get a Q6600 now and ebay it and get a Q9450 later.
December 21, 2007 7:01:13 AM

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
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2007 7:15:46 AM

I'm on an unlocked t-bird right now, it was really hard to do it with my unsteady hands. Golden bridges ftw!

Yes, tis an unfortunate fact that game code is very inefficient in core usage. How many games can scale anywhere near linearly with core count increase or use more than 50% of all cores? Programmers like to take shortcuts, and then say that it can use more than one core. It never says it can use it well.
December 21, 2007 9:31:57 AM

As was mentioned.. the Penryn isn't going to be thermally constrained as much as it is FSB limited.

That's why I think the Q6600 has the better potential (especially depending on what motherboard you have).

I guess we'll have to see what the X48/P45s do with a mature BIOS... Either way, I *WAS* excited about the Q9450, until I found out the multiplier.
December 21, 2007 3:41:27 PM

I'm sitting on a opteron 175 for quite awhile now and I've been looking to upgrade for a couple months now. I was planning to buy one of the Q9xxx when they came out but with the delay I'm not really sure now if I want to wait. It's a really tough choice but I'm tossing the idea around of going with one of the E8xxx's or a Q6600. Even though the new Penryns are going to be FSB limited aren't they also a bit faster clock for clock compared to the conroe or am I mistaken? I can't decide where to go from here, hmmm..
December 21, 2007 3:47:13 PM

DaveElls said:
I'm sitting on a opteron 175 for quite awhile now and I've been looking to upgrade for a couple months now. I was planning to buy one of the Q9xxx when they came out but with the delay I'm not really sure now if I want to wait. It's a really tough choice but I'm tossing the idea around of going with one of the E8xxx's or a Q6600. Even though the new Penryns are going to be FSB limited aren't they also a bit faster clock for clock compared to the conroe or am I mistaken? I can't decide where to go from here, hmmm..



7% clock for clock from what I've seen...

But at the same FSB with only 7% more clock for clock a higher multiplier will help the Kentsfield.
December 21, 2007 4:11:44 PM

gamebro said:
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: 


His math is correct, but his assumptions are wrong :>

#1) Getting the Q6600 to 3.6 is tough and 3.4 seems like the closer top, though some chips to hit 3.6 but that is about the reasonable limit anyone is reporting.

#2) The 400FSB is not the max FSB by any means. Most P35 boards hit 450FSB w/o an issue. Newer revisions are hitting 500FSB.

So you have 450x8=3.6Ghz x 1.07= 3.852 or 500x8=4.0 x 1.07 = 4.28
Also at the 4.0Ghz, the new chip puts off less heat than the Q6600 at 3.6ghz.
December 21, 2007 4:15:54 PM

nukchebi0 said:
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.


thats what i thought. if u really want to change the cpu. ill say, overclock what u have till u fry it. then go buy another one.
December 21, 2007 4:19:20 PM

zenmaster said:
His math is correct, but his assumptions are wrong :>

#1) Getting the Q6600 to 3.6 is tough and 3.4 seems like the closer top, though some chips to hit 3.6 but that is about the reasonable limit anyone is reporting.

#2) The 400FSB is not the max FSB by any means. Most P35 boards hit 450FSB w/o an issue. Newer revisions are hitting 500FSB.

So you have 450x8=3.6Ghz x 1.07= 3.852 or 500x8=4.0 x 1.07 = 4.28
Also at the 4.0Ghz, the new chip puts off less heat than the Q6600 at 3.6ghz.



I was using it as an example... so I do apologize if it's causing confusion for anyone. :D 

My Q6600 does 3.6 without a problem, so it was mostly a comparison for me. I realize most newer boards will do 500 MHz Bus, could you direct me to Yorkfields that will do that? Bus wall on quads is realized a bit sooner.. Anyways, the biggest thing will be SSE4 support on the Penryns and if it is picked up... I would personally rather have a low VID (which I don't have) Q6600 over a Penryn. :kaola:  (Except for a QX9650)
December 21, 2007 4:24:42 PM

Most P35s do not hit 450, well not stable anyhow. 450 is a 1800 MHZ Rated FSB. Most P35s support 1333 or 1600 O.C.ed, 1800 is pushing it to extremes unless the manufacturer says the board supports 1800. Asus is working on a x48 chipset that is suppose to support 2000mhz, but it'll cost like $400.00 We all know the average Jo doesnt spend over $150 for a mobo, and I havent seen any $150 boards that are up to the 1800MHZ task let alone 2000MHZ.
December 21, 2007 4:42:42 PM

mestizo73 said:
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.

With that said I would say Q9450, definitely. It has SSE4 and in some encoding programs shows huges gains in clock-for-clock performance compared with its Kentsfield counterpart. If you can wait, I'd say you're much better off with the Yorkfield.
December 21, 2007 4:48:15 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
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.


Hold on a sec, you are telling me it produces NO heat while idling at 3.0? The CPU temp will literally be equal to ambient temperature during idle? That is amazing that it can run and idle at ambient room temperature.
December 21, 2007 5:14:59 PM

weskurtz81 said:
Hold on a sec, you are telling me it produces NO heat while idling at 3.0? The CPU temp will literally be equal to ambient temperature during idle? That is amazing that it can run and idle at ambient room temperature.


Well the qx9650 comes stock at 3.0 and you can dig the reviews up for yourself. But in any case I dont have one so I cant prove it, I'm going by research that I have done. Besides a stock allendale e2180 that I do have runs 23c at idle and my ambient is 34c so ya theres no reason not to believe the reviews its better technology.
December 21, 2007 10:53:58 PM

weskurtz81 said:
Hold on a sec, you are telling me it produces NO heat while idling at 3.0? The CPU temp will literally be equal to ambient temperature during idle? That is amazing that it can run and idle at ambient room temperature.


I believe the Q9450 uses just 7.9watts when idling.
December 21, 2007 11:09:23 PM

The Q6600 is still a good deal, however the Q9xxx cpus are a lot better.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

Anandtech did a great review on the QX9650. Of course it had an unlocked multiplier, making overclocking 4.0Ghz+ real easy.

I would also like to point out this in the article:
Quote:
With over a year of experience overclocking the Core 2 family of processors, we have learned a thing or two. One of the most important items we've learned is that higher FSB settings do not necessarily mean better performance. Understandably, this may come as a shock to some. For whatever reason, even a lot of well-regarded, seasoned overclockers seem to place great value in achieving the highest possible FSB.


This means that the higher your multiplier is, the better because since there is no performance difference between, say, 400x9 and 450x8, less heat, less power consumption, and longer life is indicated.

That being said, I would look for the cpu with the highest multiplier that isn't an extreme version.
December 21, 2007 11:15:16 PM

Evilonigiri said:
The Q6600 is still a good deal, however the Q9xxx cpus are a lot better.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

Anandtech did a great review on the QX9650. Of course it had an unlocked multiplier, making overclocking 4.0Ghz+ real easy.

I would also like to point out this in the article:
Quote:
With over a year of experience overclocking the Core 2 family of processors, we have learned a thing or two. One of the most important items we've learned is that higher FSB settings do not necessarily mean better performance. Understandably, this may come as a shock to some. For whatever reason, even a lot of well-regarded, seasoned overclockers seem to place great value in achieving the highest possible FSB.


This means that the higher your multiplier is, the better because since there is no performance difference between, say, 400x9 and 450x8, less heat, less power consumption, and longer life is indicated.

That being said, I would look for the cpu with the highest multiplier that isn't an extreme version.



...which is the Q9550 at 8.5x trayed at around $530.

The Q9450 at 8x is trayed around $316 and the Q9300 (which has 6 MB L2 Cache.. not 12, and 2 less than Kentsfield) at 7.5 for $266.

These are tray prices, so expect retail to be much (not too much though.. depending on demand at release) to be higher.
December 21, 2007 11:42:31 PM

My point..

Key things to point out..

Max FSB 451 on a Maximus SE.

So it's going to be interesting with these mainstream chips for overclocking.

I've also heard some reports of QX9650s dieing at 1.8vCore, just flat out dead, won't work anymore. Makes me wonder about higher voltage overclocks and their longevity...
December 22, 2007 1:16:48 AM

Hell, both my P5N32e SLI and my Maximus Formula SE got me over 500FSB on my e6400.

Either way I think that I'm probably gonna stick with the dual core CPU's for another year or 2 until games really take advantage of 4 or more cores. I'm probably gonna grab an e8400, but I'd like to see some real benchmarks and prices before making up my mind.(duh)
December 22, 2007 1:25:16 AM

P5K3 with E8500


Got 500 FSB easily.. point again is that the Yorkfield and Kentsfield Quads hit the FSB wall a lot quicker than their dual core counterparts.

That being said, it looks like early stepping Yorkfields are hitting a wall faster than Kentsfield. A newer revision might help this a bit.
December 22, 2007 1:30:49 AM

What I meant in my post before was not only to Quad-core, but also Dual-core. I'd rather get the dual-core that can OC to like 4.6ghz instead of a quad that can only do 4.2ghz
December 22, 2007 3:15:37 AM

Seconded that evil!

I am very guilty of riding the "quad core hype train" all year. I am getting off this train here and now, thanks to this thread.

As a gamer I have come to the harsh conclusion, that for the next year at least, quads won't have much advantage over dual cores, especially when those $200 penryn duals can easily get to 4+ghz on air. It now appears to be very difficult to get to 4ghz with the only quad that was worth considering for poor @$$ people like me (Q9450) =D


E8400 is looking better and better as I read more about it. I have found several sites that have initial pricing, and it looks like it'll cost 200-225 for one of these chips. I won't hesitate to pick one up as soon as they are available, as these prices are quite fair when you compare them to the current E6850 ($280) or even E6750 ($190).

Remember people, the Q9450 has a tray price of $315, no doubt they'll sell for $350+, especially since they'll probably be the highest demanded new chip for quite some time. Heck, would anybody here be surprised if they went over $400 within the first month of launch? Look at what's happened with the hot new video cards as of late, merchants are in the mood for a good fleecing lately it appears =\

Sigh...... All the hype about Crysis and quad cores all year long!..... I feel cheated somehow, even though I haven't bought a quad lol. E8400! I CHOOSE YOU!

(please note that the cheaper E8300 has a lower multiplier of 8.5, meanwhile the E8500 is too d@mned expensive. E8400 does indeed look like the magic bullet for the new dual cores with it's 9x multi)
December 22, 2007 6:13:07 AM

what about a E8400 vs Q6600 would that be a worthwhile investment?
December 22, 2007 6:00:39 PM

Yes, at this point in time, I am pretty sure the E8400 will outperform (on average) the Q6600 in 95% of GAMES if both are at stock settings, not to mention that the E8400 will overclock much much higher on average then the Q will... Still, in apps that make good use of quads, the Q6600 will no doubt win, which I couldn't care less about, since I primarily game. The first games that will make good use of quads, to a point that the Q6600 actually does beat out the E8400?........ Hell, we'll have 32nm Nahalem by then!!! So who cares?

And if I remember correctly, Intel has no plans to lower the price on the Q6600 anytime soon, even amidst the penryn launches! So $280 for a Q6600 vs $210 for a E8400. People will really need to look at what they'll be using these chips for, before buying.

!