Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Performance difference 65nm vs 45nm quad core

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2008 8:24:41 PM

I've been looking at this system to get and its a really great price but I'm hesitating buying it because of the

new cpu's comming out in the next few months. It comes with a 780i so I could always upgrade but that wouldn't

make much $ sense. Is there a big performance difference between the q6600 and whatever replaces it? Any

thoughts or suggestions would be helpful.



Also I know a few of you are gonna say build my own system but I just don't have the time or skill.
January 19, 2008 8:27:27 PM

It's something like 7% clock for clock. However the low end lineup on the 45nm is:

Q9300 - 2.5 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache
Q9450 - 2.66 GHz, 12 MB L2 Cache

Q6600 - 2.4 GHz, 8 MB L2 Cache

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).
January 19, 2008 8:47:57 PM

if you are happy to OC (and its not hard) the q6600 will still be better, becuase intel are limiting the lower end 45nm CPU's with crappy multipliers
Related resources
January 19, 2008 8:51:10 PM

spuddyt said:
if you are happy to OC (and its not hard) the q6600 will still be better, becuase intel are limiting the lower end 45nm CPU's with crappy multipliers


Unless you want to run your board at 500 MHz FSB 24/7!
January 19, 2008 9:15:07 PM

500FSB is not easy with a Quad.
They put far more stress on your Mobo.
January 19, 2008 9:40:33 PM

zenmaster said:
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)

So.. on to FSB multipliers.

400 MHz FSB!

3000 MHz Q9300 = 3.17 GHz Q6600 (3.6 GHz at 400 MHz FSB)
3200 MHz Q9450 = 3.5 GHz Q6600 (3.6 GHz at 400 MHz FSB)


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.
January 19, 2008 10:07:52 PM

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)

2.5 GHz Q9300 = 2.63 GHz Q6600 (9x262)
2.66 GHz Q9450 = 2.81 GHz Q6600 (9x312)

So.. on to FSB multipliers.

400 MHz FSB! said:
So.. on to FSB multipliers.

400 MHz FSB!


3000 MHz Q9300 = 3.16 GHz Q6600 (9x351)
3200 MHz Q9450 = 3.37 GHz Q6600 (9x374)
January 19, 2008 10:09:06 PM

Then I was wrong and it's an even better reason to keep using G0 Q6600s.
January 19, 2008 10:09:52 PM

Ignore above post ... I did the maths wrong >.<

I shouldn't try to do maths when i've had beers...
January 19, 2008 10:12:01 PM

coret said:
Ignore above post ... I did the maths wrong >.<

I shouldn't try to do maths when i've had beers...


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 :p 
January 19, 2008 10:14:30 PM

coret said:
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 :p 



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.
January 19, 2008 10:18:54 PM

So in conclusion, just get the Q6600 and overclock it to heaven.
January 19, 2008 10:20:20 PM

cnumartyr said:
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.
January 19, 2008 10:20:27 PM

Evilonigiri said:
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.

It's all a trade off.
January 19, 2008 10:48:37 PM

coret said:
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%?! :lol: 

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%? :kaola: 
January 19, 2008 10:51:58 PM

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.
January 19, 2008 10:56:58 PM

cnumartyr said:
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.

It's all a trade off.


Ahh, I love debating this with you cnumartyr! :p 

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.
January 19, 2008 11:11:00 PM

epsilon84 said:
Ahh, I love debating this with you cnumartyr! :p 

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! :kaola: 

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.
January 19, 2008 11:26:53 PM

cnumartyr said:
For WC setups and stuff like that I think the Q6600 is a better choice to push it further.

Ah...the water closet?

Sorry, I always see it as that. :( 
January 19, 2008 11:28:55 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Ah...the water closet?

Sorry, I always see it as that. :( 


Are you from Germany?
January 19, 2008 11:33:19 PM

cnumartyr said:
Are you from Germany?

No I'm from Hawaii :pt1cable: 
January 19, 2008 11:49:08 PM

Evilonigiri said:
No I'm from Hawaii :pt1cable: 



Lol.. I knew they called it a Water Closet in Germany, don't know much about Hawaii, I'm on the East Coast. :kaola: 
January 19, 2008 11:51:34 PM

cnumartyr said:
Lol.. I knew they called it a Water Closet in Germany, don't know much about Hawaii, I'm on the East Coast. :kaola: 

Currently, I'm on the West Coast. I lived in Hawaii for 10years.

Must be hanging around too many German people...
January 19, 2008 11:52:18 PM

epsilon84 said:
You want to split hairs over 1.8%?! :lol: 
When dealing with CPU's doing billions of calculations per second, and how performance/power need/heat production varies with OCing, yes, I will 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. said:
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.


Which would be precisely the reason I chose equally clocked chips with the same FSB - otherwise it's not a fair test.

Also, if you check, I said this... "(assuming q6600 and qx6850 clocks are comparable)" to help cover for that exact problem.

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%? :kaola: said:
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%? :kaola: 


Find me a benchmark showing that 1% you claim and I'll agree with it :) 

Can I go to bed now without having my reasonably valid calculations + assumptions mocked in my sleep? :sleep: 
January 19, 2008 11:57:10 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Currently, I'm on the West Coast. I lived in Hawaii for 10years.

Must be hanging around too many German people...


I think so.. I spent a couple weeks in Germany and that's all I heard was the WC...

East Coast > West Coast. :kaola: 
January 19, 2008 11:59:09 PM

Not to end the big debate here or anything but I'm not that big on overclocking. The most overclocking I've done is

in nTune and it didn't support my cpu at the time.
January 20, 2008 12:00:40 AM

gamecrazychris said:
Not to end the big debate here or anything but I'm not that big on overclocking. The most overclocking I've done is in nTune and it didn't support my cpu at the time.



At completely stock, than yes the Q6600 is beat by it's replacement Q9450. A Q9450 at stock will perform roughly like a 3.0 GHz Q6600 (which coincidentally is a 333x9 Q6600).

Edit: But there are a lot of us overclockers here. :kaola: 
January 20, 2008 12:02:22 AM

cnumartyr said:
I think so.. I spent a couple weeks in Germany and that's all I heard was the WC...

East Coast > West Coast. :kaola: 

What, in OCing? :kaola: 
January 20, 2008 12:03:51 AM

cnumartyr said:
Edit: But there are a lot of us overclockers here. :kaola: 

The OCing population is 2% I believe. That's not a lot...

The OCing population here on TGH is like 80% if that's what you meant.
January 20, 2008 12:05:01 AM

Evilonigiri said:
The OCing population is 2% I believe. That's not a lot...

The OCing population here on TGH is like 80% if that's what you meant.


That's exactly what I meant. I would venture to say that most people on Toms have SOME experience with OCing.
January 20, 2008 12:05:08 AM

Its not that I'm against overclocking, I just don't want to risk breaking

my new system. If anyone knows of a good overclocking video please

tell me. If I did decide to overclock it then it wouldn't be that extreme

mabey to 3.1 ghz
January 20, 2008 12:06:56 AM

gamecrazychris said:
Its not that I'm against overclocking, I just don't want to risk breaking

my new system. If anyone knows of a good overclocking video please

tell me. If I did decide to overclock it then it wouldn't be that extreme

mabey to 3.1 ghz


If you were OCing a Q6600 from 266x9 to 333x9 it would be on par with a stock Q9450 and be cheaper. You could also get it now rather than waiting.

For 3 GHz on a Q9450 needs a 375 MHz FSB...

Go to the OC section of this website and read up on C2D and C2Q OCing. If you have any questions we have a great community here that will be willing to help you.

Edit: My Q6600 sits at 3.6 GHz daily. I've had it up to 3.89 for Benches on air.
January 20, 2008 12:07:48 AM

gamecrazychris said:
Its not that I'm against overclocking, I just don't want to risk breaking

my new system. If anyone knows of a good overclocking video please

tell me. If I did decide to overclock it then it wouldn't be that extreme

mabey to 3.1 ghz

There is a great overclocking guide here. You might want to check that out.
January 20, 2008 12:09:09 AM

cnumartyr said:
I've had it up to 3.89 for Benches on air.


What time do you get in SuperPI 1million at that speed?
January 20, 2008 12:10:26 AM

In real life situations will I really notice a difference between 2.6ghz and

3ghz? Also overclocking voids the warrenty on my new computer so if

something does happen I would pretty much be screwed right?
January 20, 2008 12:11:30 AM

coret said:
What time do you get in SuperPI 1million at that speed?


I didn't SuperPi, I was 3DMark06ing.

My best SuperPi1M was 14.09 with DDR2-1200 and 3.6 GHz. And no I did no Windows Tweaks or anything. It was just a straight up install like normal.
January 20, 2008 12:13:27 AM

gamecrazychris said:
In real life situations will I really notice a difference between 2.6ghz and

3ghz? Also overclocking voids the warrenty on my new computer so if

something does happen I would pretty much be screwed right?



Well, if you buy like a Dell or something you won't be able to OC it. Most of us build our own PCs and OC them. OEMs (Dell, HP) normally lock their BIOS's so you can't OC it.

Yes it voids the warranty. However I've gotten motherboards, RAM, CPUs, and Video cards that I've OC'd replaced. If I even see it doing something I don't like I return it. I RMAed a motherboard because I needed 1.4v for 333 MHz on the Northbridge. They took it back and replaced it.

Anyways.. if you are buying it from a Dell or something, I would recommend waiting for a Q9450.

Edit: Also what is a real life situation for you? Gaming? Web browsing? Rendering / Editing or Encoding Video or MP3s?
January 20, 2008 12:13:47 AM

gamecrazychris said:
In real life situations will I really notice a difference between 2.6ghz and

3ghz? Also overclocking voids the warrenty on my new computer so if

something does happen I would pretty much be screwed right?

They won't know, unless you told them. ^^

And yes you will see a difference in 2.6Ghz and 3.0Ghz. I did, at least in supcom.
January 20, 2008 12:14:21 AM

gamecrazychris said:
In real life situations will I really notice a difference between 2.6ghz and

3ghz? Also overclocking voids the warrenty on my new computer so if

something does happen I would pretty much be screwed right?


You probably won't notice a difference unless you do a vast quantity of number crunching like video encoding or graphics rendering or something along those line.

Overclocking may void the warranty, but I've yet to see a way to tell whether or not chip has been overclocked other than being scarred by heat (which doesn't happen anymore as CPU's throttle back to avoid heat damage)

Plus when overclocking, a couple of boots at unstable clock speeds won't hurt it ... just reset the CMOS (if it doesn't automatically) and you're back to where you were before :) 
January 20, 2008 12:16:45 AM

coret said:
You probably won't notice a difference unless you do a vast quantity of number crunching like video encoding or graphics rendering or something along those line.

Overclocking may void the warranty, but I've yet to see a way to tell whether or not chip has been overclocked other than being scarred by heat (which doesn't happen anymore as CPU's throttle back to avoid heat damage)

Plus when overclocking, a couple of boots at unstable clock speeds won't hurt it ... just reset the CMOS (if it doesn't automatically) and you're back to where you were before :) 



Let's see what I've done to my stuff that STILL works.

I've frozen my computer atleast 30-40 times while OCing my GPU. Trying to find the max I can possibly finish 3DMark06 at. Nothing happened, everything is still good.

I've crashed I can't tell you how many times from memory problems during OCing it.

I've crashed my computer a tons of times OCing my CPU and getting auto reboots.

I ran my P4 @ 3.2 GHz with no thermal grease for 4 months and it shut down 3-4 times a day. I was just too lazy to open it up and put more on. It's still chuggin strong.

Edit: I've run my Q6600 at over 1.6v on Air. It's still fine.
January 20, 2008 12:18:21 AM

cnumartyr said:
Let's see what I've done to my stuff that STILL works.

I've frozen my computer atleast 30-40 times while OCing my GPU. Trying to find the max I can possibly finish 3DMark06 at. Nothing happened, everything is still good.

I've crashed I can't tell you how many times from memory problems during OCing it.

I've crashed my computer a tons of times OCing my CPU and getting auto reboots.

I ran my P4 @ 3.2 GHz with no thermal grease for 4 months and it shut down 3-4 times a day. I was just too lazy to open it up and put more on. It's still chuggin strong.

Edit: I've run my Q6600 at over 1.6v on Air. It's still fine.

I've got 2 words for you...

STOP BRAGGING.
January 20, 2008 12:19:20 AM

gamecrazychris said:
If you want to know I was looking at

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Gamer_Infinity_SLI/#...

I know that they don't have the best track reccord but I changed

some stuff and the price turned out pretty good


If you were comfortable with it (and most of us would help you with component selection and compatibility) you could build your own for a lot cheaper with better parts.
January 20, 2008 12:19:54 AM

Evilonigiri said:
I've got 2 words for you...

STOP BRAGGING.


Lol, how is it bragging talking about the stuff I've done to my stuff and crash my computer multiple times?
January 20, 2008 12:22:58 AM

cnumartyr said:
Lol, how is it bragging talking about the stuff I've done to my stuff and crash my computer multiple times?

"I crashed a lot but it's still fine" would have been just fine.

No need the details.
January 20, 2008 12:23:52 AM

I'll build my next computer but I just can't at the moment. I just moved

and It'll take me at least 3 months until I have enough free time to build

my own system. But back to the topic, I guess I'll just wait like 2

months.
January 20, 2008 12:24:05 AM

Evilonigiri said:
"I crashed a lot but it's still fine" would have been just fine.

No need the details.


Ok, I'll give you that much. However I was just trying to give details so the OP knew just how many times I have messed up and not damaged any equipment.
January 20, 2008 12:25:20 AM

gamecrazychris said:
I'll build my next computer but I just can't at the moment. I just moved

and It'll take me at least 3 months until I have enough free time to build

my own system. But back to the topic, I guess I'll just wait like 2

months.


That's a good idea, and by then you can build it yourself!

And sorry for hijacking your thread with Evil, we do that alot. He and I need to just exchange Steam IDs or AIM.
January 20, 2008 12:25:36 AM

cnumartyr said:
Ok, I'll give you that much. However I was just trying to give details so the OP knew just how many times I have messed up and not damaged any equipment.

With an ulterior motive... :whistle: 
January 20, 2008 12:27:21 AM

Oh crap I forgot, I was gonna get an nvidia 9800 gx2 when it comes out

in Febuary-March so I guess I have no option but to wait.

Anyway thanks for all the info. I'll come back to the fourms when I get

my new system and if I decide to overclock it.
!