Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Convince me about what CPU is best to buy please

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 15, 2008 3:27:09 PM

Hi,

I asked in this forum a couple of weeks ago of what cpu to buy. The thing is I wont be buying before in 1-2 weeks no matter what I decide on.

My last question was about E6750 vs. Q6600. I ended up deciding on Q6600.

But now as I at some retailers claiming they have the Q9450 at the end of january I am a lot in doubt :) 

The problems/questions are then:

1) Is the price increase of the Q9450 worth it over the Q6600?

2) I am not much into overclocking, so Im only up for moderate overclocking. I was planning to set a Q6600 at around 3 ghz, so will all the fuss about a low muiltiplier on Q9450 be any trouble to me at all?

3) The last thing is that the Q9450 could end up not getting released in january and maybe I will have to wait till march. Since I'm not much up for this, there's also the new dual cores. Some reviews only states ~1% performance increase of the E8400 vs. E6750 (http://en.expreview.com/?p=68&page=5), other ppl says around 10%. What to believe? I am tempted to say that if I decided on Q6600 over E6750 i should also take it over E8400 given the small improvement?

I made a new thread since I think it would be really nice with some fresh opinions, and the old thread is apparently gone. I find it quite difficult to decide on this :) 

More about : convince cpu buy

January 15, 2008 3:42:40 PM

The best cpu in the world is VIA C7, i suggest you buy that.
January 15, 2008 4:14:13 PM

huh? :) 
Related resources
January 15, 2008 4:18:31 PM

uk_gangsta said:
The best cpu in the world is VIA C7, i suggest you buy that.


VIA rocks :pt1cable: 
January 15, 2008 4:31:23 PM

Q9450 especialy if it comes out next week!!!!! :) 
January 15, 2008 5:18:07 PM

budget....sub 300 you really can't beat the q6600 in my opinion.

Moderate OC is all you'll need, spend the rest of the dough elsewhere in the system.
January 15, 2008 6:32:56 PM

PlasticSashimi said:
budget....sub 300 you really can't beat the q6600 in my opinion.

Moderate OC is all you'll need, spend the rest of the dough elsewhere in the system.


That said, i still think the VIA C7 is the best for his system.
January 15, 2008 7:50:19 PM

No, VIA own cyrix, cyrix went into liquidation in the late 90's and VIA bought the x86 license off them to produce cpu's
January 15, 2008 7:55:21 PM

Sorry, I meant owns as in ownage.
January 15, 2008 7:57:13 PM

OOHHHhhhh i see, yeah the pwn
January 15, 2008 8:17:06 PM

I want a Via C7 to see how far i can overclock it. Apparently they're great if you want a VERY low power build.
a c 309 à CPUs
a c 121 K Overclocking
January 15, 2008 8:22:05 PM

What will you use the cpu for? If you will be doing mostly gaming, then a duo is good enough. The extra clock speed is more useful than two extra cores. spend any extra cash on a better vga card. If your use is heavy computing, rendering, folding, etc, or even flight simulatorx, then a quad is better.

If your mobo can take a 45nm processor, then I would go for that. It will be a small bit faster, clock for clock. In addition, it will run cooler, take less power, and probably overclock better.
January 15, 2008 8:25:47 PM

The VIA C7 is only two gigorz. Certainly fastar than AMDs phenom, but not much else...
January 15, 2008 8:32:36 PM

Honestly get it out of your mind that the 9*&^ Intel series chips will be released anytime soon. Intel has absolutely no plans to release a newer faster chip than what they already have out when there isnt even a stint of competition. You wont see intel procs for awhile IMO and I would bet on it if I were a gambling man.

You will see Q6600 prices drop substantially before intel released chips as to reduce supply on those chips and make room for new chips... basic marketing principles that we have all seen for ages now.
January 15, 2008 8:52:18 PM

hughyhunter said:
Honestly get it out of your mind that the 9*&^ Intel series chips will be released anytime soon. Intel has absolutely no plans to release a newer faster chip than what they already have out when there isnt even a stint of competition. You wont see intel procs for awhile IMO and I would bet on it if I were a gambling man.


Dude, but I am a gamblin man! How about $100 ten to one that Yorkies up to Q9550 come out by Mar. 31? Heck how about $1,000 at twelve to one? :) 


January 16, 2008 3:42:33 PM

Maybe I forgot to mention some things in my original post. I am buying a completely new PC, so everything will be new. No existing motherboard etc. to take into the considerations.

I will primarily choose cpu based on gaming, but to be honest I'm not the one having my system up to date all the time, because I only play the big multiplayer-hits on PC (like COD4, mmorpg's like wow etc.) and there can be years between titles like this. The rest goes to my xbox (adventure games etc.). Not that I don't like PC gaming, but I won't pay the price to keep all my hardware up to date all the time.

So the primary object of gaming right now is COD4 and in the future maybe some of the upcoming mmorpgs like Age of Conan or Warhammer Online.

I assume the Q6600 will be more than enough to handle the mentioned games? So my thought was: Why not just take a quad core if 1) It can run todays games fine 2) It has the potential of being better in the future?

Besides gaming I also use photoshop, ocasionally I edit home-videos and maybe in the future I will use it for some physics simulations.
January 16, 2008 5:22:52 PM

Shad0w said:
I assume the Q6600 will be more than enough to handle the mentioned games? So my thought was: Why not just take a quad core if 1) It can run todays games fine 2) It has the potential of being better in the future?


Answer: Because the Q6600 costs more then a dual core that will be even faster. Sure, in a few years the games you are playing may run better on four cores so you can either by current four core proc like the q6600 at a substantially reduced price or, and more likely, you will want a new video card, new ram, MB, cpu, etc...

I build a new computer every 2-3 years. Every system I have built I have tried to future proof it, and every system I have built wasn't future proofed. Something always changes that makes me want to start with new core components.

Buy a q6600 if you want, but I am building a system for the same general type of use as you and I am going with the e8400 and putting the extra money into my pocket.


January 16, 2008 5:33:12 PM

I would definitely get a quad core. Cyrsis and other upcoming titles have been proven to utilize all four cores and benefit from having the extra cores. You may think that a comparable dual core would be faster than a quad but that's just not going to be the case in a few months from now. Remember when everyone thought the same thing when a dual core came out... people were thinking that just because right now the single cores are outperforming the duals in games that it would stay like that for awhile but sure enough the dual cores surpassed the singles in performance very quickly.
It's not about future proof... it's about getting the best proc for the money and right now the best proc for the money hands down is the Q6600 with the GO stepping. That's what I recommend and that's what I would buy if I were building right now.
January 16, 2008 11:11:44 PM

I agree with hughyhunter, I just upgraded my E6750 to a Q6600 G0. Its now running at 3.4Ghz. So far I play all my games about the same as my E6750 overclocked at 3.4, but...now my cpu never reaches 100% load even with tons of other background programs. The E6750 is always reaches 100%. If I were you go with a quad so you can play game and do other things in the background. There hasnt been any comparison between the new E8400 and the Q6600 yet but I'm pretty sure the quad will still beat the E8400 in my multi tasking applications. Gaming maybe the E8400 will win but only with dual core for sure.
January 16, 2008 11:17:46 PM

I'm going for the Q9450 mainly because of the lower heat and double cache. In most benchmarks the q6600 needs 200 more mhz to to make up for the cache difference.
January 17, 2008 4:58:10 AM

Wow vage... you upgraded from a E6750 to a Q6600... You must have money to burn. Do you have the old proc so that I can buy it!? I'm still running an old 4600+. I wont upgrade until there is a proc for around 250 that is four-five times faster than mine in "every" benchmark.
January 18, 2008 4:37:33 PM

I'm leaning much towards the Q6600 :) 

I know no one can give me guarantees, but isn't it quite likely that I will be able to hit 3.0 ghz, without having to do lapping etc? Because I am not so interested in doing such things with my new CPU :) 
January 18, 2008 4:56:02 PM

rallyimprezive said:
The VIA C7 is only two gigorz. Certainly fastar than AMDs phenom, but not much else...


No it isn't

Oh it's a Joke, very clever :sarcastic: 
January 18, 2008 5:03:52 PM

Get the skynet T-800 CPU unit. It's self-learning!
January 18, 2008 5:57:20 PM

Honestly I would go with the q6600. The general way of thinking when building a new system should be as follows. Get a decent cpu meaning never buy the top of the line cpu due to the price being way too high. 800 bucks for a cpu is just not worth it. The price will only drop by 500 bucks over the course of 6 months or so. The Q6600 has plenty of balls to run things just fine. Most people think by getting the top of the line cpu will result in killer frame rates and that is so far from the thruith it's not even funny. I personally run an AMD 939 4000+ OC'd to 2.9 ghz, 2 gig ddr 4000+ memory, ati AGP 512 meg X1950 pro, Sata I Raid 0 hd's and I rip through all games on max settings. When I do build a new system next year I will go with a mid range cpu for around 250 bucks, the video card is the big one now so I will spend some decent cash on a sweet video card, good memory and of course setup raid 0. This will be overkill for any current game out at the time I am sure considering I have no problems running on an "out dated system" with a single core cpu, AGP video card and older memory. The key thing I always look for when building a new system is the motherboard. Always get a board that can handle all cpu's on the current line and, has plenty of room for upgrades and is from a quality manufacturer, ASUS or ABIT. Also make sure the only built in options are the Network Adaper(s) and maybe audio. Never get a motherboard with build in modem, video or audio. If you do get a board with audio you can either disable it or use it. On board audio is the only thing I don't mind having there.
January 18, 2008 7:16:03 PM

I am thinking of buying a ASUS P5K AiLifestyle motherboard and 2x1 gb of Kingston ValueRam PC2-6400CL5 / 800 MHz.

And a Scythe Infinity/Ninja or Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme cooler.

Would this combo overclock well?
January 18, 2008 9:26:37 PM

That's a good mobo... I would get some extreme performance ram though. Like patriot extreme performance. Something that is super overclockable as well. Considering that's what you are going to do with this sucker. You dont buy a high end P35 board and cheap ram... High end P35 boards are for overclockers only or people that just like to burn money and watch the fire.
I would get that mobo with a Q6600 G0 stepping proc. You should be hitting 3.5-3.6 on air very stably and be very happy with a build like that. I also recommend the Ultra-120 cooler and a fan that is recommended by the manufacturer thermalright. This sucker will keep your system cool and if i'm not mistaken it's big enough to cover over the memory and help cool it too.
If you arent going to build for awhile and are wanting to wait then the P45 should be released soon as well as the Q9 series procs.
January 18, 2008 11:00:02 PM

hughyhunter said:
Wow vage... you upgraded from a E6750 to a Q6600... You must have money to burn. Do you have the old proc so that I can buy it!? I'm still running an old 4600+. I wont upgrade until there is a proc for around 250 that is four-five times faster than mine in "every" benchmark.


Sorry, I just sold it on ebay for $184 including shipping. Considering I bought the chip for $204 over a month ago, thats not bad at all.

I probably lost about $30, small price to pay for the Q6600 over the E6750.
January 18, 2008 11:04:21 PM

Lean towards the P5K Premium if you can find it for a good deal. Check out my setup. The only bad thing about the P5K premium is that it doesnt work well with some WD HDDs and Samsungs. Use Seagate and you should be fine.
January 19, 2008 3:33:32 AM

vagetaqtd said:
Lean towards the P5K Premium if you can find it for a good deal. Check out my setup. The only bad thing about the P5K premium is that it doesnt work well with some WD HDDs and Samsungs. Use Seagate and you should be fine.


Wow... it looks like you have a good overclock. How did you get your memory to be stable at those speeds? Usually I never see anyone get a stable overclock with 4x1 sticks of ram. What kind of GPUs are you running?
Is your memory factory 1066 or 800?
January 20, 2008 1:10:12 AM

hughyhunter said:
Wow... it looks like you have a good overclock. How did you get your memory to be stable at those speeds? Usually I never see anyone get a stable overclock with 4x1 sticks of ram. What kind of GPUs are you running?
Is your memory factory 1066 or 800?


I'm using Crucial Ballistix Tracers PC8500, 2.2v, 4-4-4-12-12-12,etc. XFX 8800GTX (stock). My system has been running and gaming for over two days without any probs.

Haven't had a chance to stress test for over 8hrs yet. Using Everest 4.20 here are my memory benchmarks:
Read: 9000MB/s
Write: 7600mb/s
Copy: 7900mb/s
Latency: 55 ns
January 20, 2008 9:34:59 AM

Don't get an asus board. They are all crap.Its about 60% of asus board
stable and the other may have problem.I recommend you and everyone
stick for gigabyte board cause it produce less heat and the feature they
give to their board is rally awesome such as durable 2, with this feature,
your board will stand for long time cause it put powerful component right that.And wait till gigabyte released their p45 chipset that has a Dynamic Energy Power Saving feature. So, stick to gigabyte board cause their board is stable right out of the box. Don't be fool to hear
someone say asus is good choice. They say that cause they have that
board. And me, now I have Abit board and I'm not really happy with that cause it produce much heat.
January 20, 2008 4:40:07 PM

I now see that the Q6600 G0 revision is out of stock here where I live. Delivering time is about 10-11 days. So if Q9450 is getting released within this time do you think I should actually take Q6600 over Q9450 even though I could get Q9450?
January 20, 2008 5:00:47 PM

Shad0w said:
I now see that the Q6600 G0 revision is out of stock here where I live. Delivering time is about 10-11 days. So if Q9450 is getting released within this time do you think I should actually take Q6600 over Q9450 even though I could get Q9450?

No... if they are the same price or relatively close in price then go with the newer chip... Is the Q9450 supposed to be 45nm? If I remember right I think that they are supposed to be 45nm penryn. I may be wrong but that would allow for more overclock room.
January 20, 2008 6:04:19 PM

Shad0w said:


I assume the Q6600 will be more than enough to handle the mentioned games? So my thought was: Why not just take a quad core if 1) It can run todays games fine 2) It has the potential of being better in the future?

Besides gaming I also use photoshop, ocasionally I edit home-videos and maybe in the future I will use it for some physics simulations.


I'd get the Q6600 if you're into Intel, or wait for the B3 if you're into AMD. If you have no preference and existing mobo choice, I'd say go Q6600. Since I have a couple of ASUS 690G's, I'm waiting till after our vacation to get Phenom's, since B3 will have been out for awhile, and I'll also have triple cores as a lower budget option.

I'm going to give LOTR online a try, as it has DX10 support that will finally justify my dual boot with XP and Windows VE (aka Son of ME). I'll order a couple of Gigabyte 3870's on February 1st from Newegg, but it's stick with the X2 3800+ and X2 4600+ until at least fall.

While I found the Via jokes a bit too snarky for a serious question, it made me remember that I found the Cyrix 486DLC in my closet awhile back. I'd saved the CPU even when I gave the board away around a decade ago, since the friend had a "genuine Intel" 386 for it.

That Cyrix held me over for a few years after I sold my 386SX-40 (soldered to the motherboard). The Cyrix was a LIF socket chip that fit into a 386 board. Afterwards I went to a 486DX2-50. I also was looking at an ad for a screaming $2000 486 system with a CD-ROM drive in the same issue of Computer Gaming World that previewed Daggerfall.

Those were the days of classic gaming, when games had really great storylines because they didn't have great graphics.
January 20, 2008 6:47:31 PM

hughyhunter said:
No... if they are the same price or relatively close in price then go with the newer chip... Is the Q9450 supposed to be 45nm? If I remember right I think that they are supposed to be 45nm penryn. I may be wrong but that would allow for more overclock room.


Yeah but the problem is the lower multiplier on Q9450? I mean, I'm not up for buying a much more expensive motherboard to take full advantage of the Q9450's overclocking abilities. Not that I will go for the highest OC possible with either chip, since I'm new to OC'ing and stuff :) 

So I would prefer the chip with the easiest overclock. Dunno which one that is :) 
January 21, 2008 9:09:31 PM

Ok... so from what I understand Shad0w is that the newer Q9450 comes with a lower stock multi than the older Q6600???

Alright say if that is true. Can you absolutely prove that on every mobo having the higher multi enables a higher overclock?

I guess I'll need more of a technical detailed explanation... not that I dont believe you... I just dont understand/know.
January 22, 2008 6:06:01 PM

I can't prove anything :D  I just tell you what I have read else where.. people are talking about the mulitplier alot so that's why I mentioned it. I guess it stresses the motherboard/ram more since the FSB is gonna be higher for an equivalent overclock.

But: Which of these two CPU's would you guys take if you were a first-time overclocker? :) 
January 22, 2008 6:08:57 PM

hughyhunter said:
Ok... so from what I understand Shad0w is that the newer Q9450 comes with a lower stock multi than the older Q6600???

Alright say if that is true. Can you absolutely prove that on every mobo having the higher multi enables a higher overclock?

I guess I'll need more of a technical detailed explanation... not that I dont believe you... I just dont understand/know.


How about this?

400x9 = 3600
400x8 = 3200

Does that make sense?

Q9450 will be limited by the motherboard and user. How hard the user wants to push the motherboard (I'd say around 3.6-4.0 Max, with WATERCOOLING on the Northbridge).

Q6600 is limited by heat.

Anyways.. Q6600 > Anything right now. Don't believe me? Don't get it. It's for OCers.
January 22, 2008 6:16:46 PM

cnumartyr: My plan was/is to OC the Q6600 to 3.0 ghz (higher if it shows to be easy for me to do it), but I'm not interested in finding the limit of my CPU/motherboard.

Would you still take the Q6600 in that case?
January 22, 2008 6:37:49 PM

I guess it's still not making sense to me. Are you saying that the Q6600 has a higher stock multiplier? Are you also saying that the mobo has only a top 400 mhz fsb? Because those would be the only reasons why a Q6600 would outperform the latest and greatest.

I understand increasing the multi increases the operating frequency of the cpu but if both chips have a max multi of 15 than that is the limiting factor. From what I am understanding is that you are saying cnumartyr is that the Q6600 comes stock at 9 and the newer 45nm comes stock at 8 (I dont believe that's the case) and that would be the limiting factor.

I'm still not convinced or even somewhat comprehending the argument that the older Q6600 will be a better performer or like you said > than anything else. Are you talking about for the price or price/performance or what?

I think you ought to do a little more research before you makes statements like that... I havent done the research and am willing to admit to that but I am a pretty good overclocker and am not buying your argument.
January 22, 2008 6:48:53 PM

9 is the maximum multiplier for the Q6600 and 8 is the maximum multiplier for the Q9450. The higher multiplier makes it easier to overclock without stressing the MB as much.
January 22, 2008 6:51:27 PM

hughyhunter said:
I guess it's still not making sense to me. Are you saying that the Q6600 has a higher stock multiplier? Are you also saying that the mobo has only a top 400 mhz fsb? Because those would be the only reasons why a Q6600 would outperform the latest and greatest.

I understand increasing the multi increases the operating frequency of the cpu but if both chips have a max multi of 15 than that is the limiting factor. From what I am understanding is that you are saying cnumartyr is that the Q6600 comes stock at 9 and the newer 45nm comes stock at 8 (I dont believe that's the case) and that would be the limiting factor.

I'm still not convinced or even somewhat comprehending the argument that the older Q6600 will be a better performer or like you said > than anything else. Are you talking about for the price or price/performance or what?

I think you ought to do a little more research before you makes statements like that... I havent done the research and am willing to admit to that but I am a pretty good overclocker and am not buying your argument.


I've done the research, and discussed it at length with some people here.

I'm glad you like to correct me though. I wasn't here to sway your opinion on the Q6600.

I'm not going to get into FSB limits on Quad Cores, or Penryns, or the 5% clock for clock advantage... I don't really feel like it because the topic has been beaten to death by myself and a few others. Don't like my opinion? Do the research and form your own. I got the CPU I wanted.
January 22, 2008 6:52:46 PM

Shad0w said:
cnumartyr: My plan was/is to OC the Q6600 to 3.0 ghz (higher if it shows to be easy for me to do it), but I'm not interested in finding the limit of my CPU/motherboard.

Would you still take the Q6600 in that case?


Most boards should do 400 MHz FSB with a Quad with ease (on air). If you aren't going higher than 3.0 GHz I would get a Q9450.. but who knows how long that will be?

If you can't wait get an E2160 ($80) for a couple months while you wait and practice OCing on that.
January 22, 2008 6:56:49 PM

Hey that Cyberdyne chip runs cool, just a thin heat sink and no fan !

Get the Leuarning cpuuuuuuuaah , get it , get it now if you want to live!(Arnnie accent)
January 22, 2008 8:25:51 PM

cnumartyr said:
... I don't really feel like it because the topic has been beaten to death by myself and a few others. Don't like my opinion? Do the research and form your own. I got the CPU I wanted.


The topic is "convince me of what cpu to buy" so we are doing just that... I am only asking these questions not to insult your intelligence but to increase my own. I didnt know that the Q6600 had a multi limitation of 9... I was under the assumption that the multi was 15. Sorry!!! Also I thought that FSB was 500 max. Not 400... this is my ignorant fault as I dont own a intel chip myself I just recently helped a friend put a Q6600 G0 platform together with an X38 mobo.

So... after doing a little bit of research myself I have one question... Why do you think that an older Q6600 with only 2x4mb L2cache with a price tag of 279 will be a better buy than a higher clocked 2.66 ghz Q9450 12mb L2cache? The price for the later should be around 319 according to a few sites i've seen. OH and it also has SSE4 support which kentsfield does not.

However I think the Q9300 would be something to argue about... it's clocked closer (still faster) to the Q6600 but still has more cache.

I guess what I'm saying with setting the multipliers aside is why would an older Q6600 be faster than a new penryn? Why would intel a multi billion dollar company do that?

If nobody wants to exhaust themselves on this subject I understand but after all this thread is called "convince me of what cpu to buy"
January 22, 2008 8:34:18 PM

The thing is.. I'm speaking from an overclocks standpoint.

The max FSB is between 450-500 depending on the chip and motherboard (in general on quads).

At any point 9xFSB > 8xFSB. Consider the Penryn (faster) has a 5.2% (on average) performance increase over the Q6600 that would mean that 9xFSB =< 8xFSBx1.052.

So that is the theoretical. The real limitations are 3.6-3.8 GHz for a Q6600 on air. To get that you have to push the board to 450 MHz FSB (Q9450) or 480 (Q9300). Now.. consider the 5.2% advantage and you get 3.422 GHz Q9450 = 3.6 GHz Q6600. Now we only need to get the FSB to 427 for the Q9450. I won't speak on a Q9300 as it has 6 MB cache and the 5.2% Penryn advantage was done with a QX9650 vs QX6850.

The reason I think the Q6600 will be the better buy is the price/demand. Also I don't pushing the motherboard too hard to get high clocks, although it is entirely possible. This is all assuming air cooling.

In short, the limiting factor of the Q6600 will be the heat produced by the chip.

The limiting factor of the Q9450 will be the motherboard.

The QX9650 is where Penryn really shines. However the move to 1333 MT/s FSB on the quads ruined it for me (if anything the Q9450 and Q6600 will be roughly equal and hardly an upgrade for those of us with Q6600s already).
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2008 9:10:48 PM

bfellow said:
Get the skynet T-800 CPU unit. It's self-learning!


I have that CPU, and it rocks! The only annoyance with it is when you it shut down, it keeps saying "I'll be back".
January 22, 2008 10:08:03 PM

runswindows95 said:
I have that CPU, and it rocks! The only annoyance with it is when you it shut down, it keeps saying "I'll be back".


You killed it.
!