So, if you aren't OCing the Q9300 should beat it and be cheaper. The Q9450 will be slightly more expensive and require a better board for OCing (8x versus 9x).
500FSB is not easy with a Quad.
They put far more stress on your Mobo.
Agreed. That was my point.
So.. here is some rampant speculation.
45nm = 7% more Clock for Clock.
Going from 1 MB Cache to 2 MB Cache = 5% more Clock for Clock.
So.. here goes some crazy math that is probably WAY off!
A 100% increase in Cache gets you 5% clock for clock. So moving from 8 MB cache to 12 MB cache would yeild a 50% increase or theoretical 2.5% increase.
Dropping from 8 MB to 6 MB would be a theoretical 1.25% Drop.
So..
2.5 GHz Q9300 = 2.64 GHz Q6600 (at 333 MHz FSB the Q6600 would be at 3.0 GHz)
2.66 GHz Q9450 = 2.98 GHz Q6600 (at 333 MHz FSB the Q6600 would be at 3.0 GHz)
The Q6600 will be hotter and require more cooling and more voltage at all levels. The question is how high do you have to run the Q9450 to beat the Q6600.
According to the non-synthetic THG benchmarks (22 tests) of the qx9650 (12mb cache) vs. qx6850 (8mb cache) which are both clocked at 3GHz using 333 FSB...
...the 45nm averages 5.2% better than 65nm, clock for clock, not 7%.
so... (assuming q6600 and qx6850 clocks are comparable)
And as a sign that I'm not very good doing maths when I've had beer, my housemate just pointed out I got it right.... Ignore that post
You did it right, but you forgot ONE thing. On the Q9300. It's 6 MB of L2 Cache and not the 12 MB of L2 Cache that the QX9650 had in the test... so I would say it's clock for clock advantage would be even lower.
You did it right, but you forgot ONE thing. On the Q9300. It's 6 MB of L2 Cache and not the 12 MB of L2 Cache that the QX9650 had in the test... so I would say it's clock for clock advantage would be even lower.
Good point ... long live the G0 Q6600! (even though I don't have one...)
I did get one thing wrong though ... a typo on "2.5 GHz Q9300 = 2.63 GHz Q6600 (9x262)" should be 9x292.
So in conclusion, just get the Q6600 and overclock it to heaven.
Yea..
For 24/7 OCs I would say the Q6600 would be better since you can hit 3.6 GHz on Air without a problem. You'd need 450 MHz FSB on that for the Q9450... At the same time you'd be pushing the board pretty hard. If you were doing water you'd have the Q6600 at 4 GHz.
According to the non-synthetic THG benchmarks (22 tests) of the qx9650 (12mb cache) vs. qx6850 (8mb cache) which are both clocked at 3GHz using 333 FSB...
...the 45nm averages 5.2% better than 65nm, clock for clock, not 7%.
You want to split hairs over 1.8%?!
OK, since we're nitpicking, how about the fact that the THG tests had both 45nm and 65nm at the same FSB, which wouldn't be the case when comparing a Q9300/Q9450 against the Q6600.
If you are talking a Q9450 vs Q6600 @ 3GHz, it would be a 375MHz FSB vs 333MHz, a 12.5% difference in FSB speed. Which probably accounts for about 1% of your 1.8% deficit, now do we want to argue over that final 0.8%?
The Q6600 is an excellent choice. As previously stated they can be greatly overclocked. They also will probably do whatever you need one to do even at stock speeds. The new CPUs I believe will provide even better preformance. To what degree we shall see and they might even have a better price v preformance ratio. If you jump now do so knowing you'll have a fine CPU and if you do don't sweat it if the upcoming CPUs are a bit better. We can't chase the tech dragon because we'll never catch it. A middle road would be to wait (and we hate to wait) to see how the new chips review and preform; compare price and make your most reasoned decision. As a side note: by waiting it is likely that some of the rest of your parts might be a bit cheaper.
For 24/7 OCs I would say the Q6600 would be better since you can hit 3.6 GHz on Air without a problem. You'd need 450 MHz FSB on that for the Q9450... At the same time you'd be pushing the board pretty hard. If you were doing water you'd have the Q6600 at 4 GHz.
It's all a trade off.
Ahh, I love debating this with you cnumartyr!
You are right, even at 450FSB you'd be pushing the mobo pretty hard. But conversely, you'd hardly be pushing the CPU. In fact you might even do it at stock volts!
To get a Q6600 to equivalent levels (~3.8GHz) you would generally need to push the CPU *very* hard.
I've sure I've said this before but I'll say it again - I don't think the Q9450 is the best choice for hardcore overclockers. 4GHz is definitely unlikely. Even with the Q9550, 4GHz wouldn't be guaranteed, since you'll still need a 470MHz FSB. But for anybody who wants equivalent to slightly better performance than a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz whilst halving the CPU power consumption, the Q9450 is a good choice.
You are right, even at 450FSB you'd be pushing the mobo pretty hard. But conversely, you'd hardly be pushing the CPU. In fact you might even do it at stock volts!
To get a Q6600 to equivalent levels (~3.8GHz) you would generally need to push the CPU *very* hard.
I've sure I've said this before but I'll say it again - I don't think the Q9450 is the best choice for hardcore overclockers. 4GHz is definitely unlikely. Even with the Q9550, 4GHz wouldn't be guaranteed, since you'll still need a 470MHz FSB. But for anybody who wants equivalent to slightly better performance than a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz whilst halving the CPU power consumption, the Q9450 is a good choice.
What are we debating? We agree!
For WC setups and stuff like that I think the Q6600 is a better choice to push it further.
The Q9450 is great for non-extreme OCers with 3.2 GHz. I think the sweet spot will be 3.2 GHz with 1600 MT/s FSB.
But again.. At the same FSB the Q6600 will always win. The Q9450 will be a great chip. Even the Q9300 will.
I am planning on getting another 2-3 Q6600s to find a 1.212 VID or so.
