Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad Core Kentfiled vs. Quad Core Yorkfield

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 21, 2008 5:04:31 PM

I am getting ready to build a new system. I use my machine mostly for internet surfing, downloading video, and I am getting into playing games. I want everyones advice on what CPU to purchase....do I go ahead and go with the current Quad Core Kentfield Q6600 or do I wait for the Penryn line to come out? Is the Penryn going to perform substantially better than the Kentfield out now? Thank you.
January 21, 2008 5:05:35 PM

You might want do a search on this topic, it has been discussed numerous times.

Short Answer? Q6600 = 266x9. Q9450 = 333x8.

Q6600 Wins at OC. Q9450 wins at stock.
January 21, 2008 5:55:03 PM

Basically, if you want to do some hardcore OCing, get the Q9450.

If you are satisfied with a moderate OC, the Q6600 should be better.
Related resources
January 21, 2008 5:57:32 PM

They will both top out around 3.6-3.8 GHz on air and the Q9450 around 4 GHz total while the Q6600 might go a bit further on water.

Problem is the multipliers. At the same FSB the Q6600 will always beat a Q9450. You have to push a board fairly hard to narrow the gap if you are OCing. This can result in early board failures among other things. Most people don't take care of their Northbridge.

Edit: The Q6600 tops out because of heat, the Q9450 tops out because of the motherboard (FSB and NB Heat).
January 21, 2008 5:59:21 PM

Thus Q9450 is good for hardcore OCing ^^
January 21, 2008 6:01:12 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Thus Q9450 is good for hardcore OCing ^^


But so is the Q6600... :kaola: 
January 21, 2008 6:05:28 PM

Which is better if I don't plan on OCing? I have never OC'ed before and dont know if I will start now.
January 21, 2008 6:09:59 PM

syquest1 said:
Which is better if I don't plan on OCing? I have never OC'ed before and dont know if I will start now.

The Q9450.

Read the guide in the overclocking section if you want to learn how.
January 21, 2008 6:24:43 PM

I think it depends more on when do you want to build this pc. Do you want to wait for a processor, or do you want to build now?
January 21, 2008 6:29:53 PM

Right now I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 with a BFG 8800 GT 512 MB video card. I have a good machine now but I want to build a beefier machine to take on all of the robust games that have come out over the past year or 2. I bought a second BFG card for SLI, a EVGA 780i SLI motherboard, etc. I am not hurting for a machine, I just want to start taking advantage of what is out there to start playing some games.
January 21, 2008 6:45:03 PM

syquest1 said:
Right now I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 with a BFG 8800 GT 512 MB video card. I have a good machine now but I want to build a beefier machine to take on all of the robust games that have come out over the past year or 2. I bought a second BFG card for SLI, a EVGA 780i SLI motherboard, etc. I am not hurting for a machine, I just want to start taking advantage of what is out there to start playing some games.

Not many games take advantage of Quadcore. It won't until well into next year.

What you should do is OC your E6600, you should see a large performance boost. SLIed 8800GTS 512MB is probably being bottlenecked by the cpu.

So OC away. But first get a good cpu cooler. Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme(TRUE) is generally considered the best, but you may need to lap it. If you don't want to lap it, the Zerotherm Nirvana offers similar performance for less money.
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2008 6:58:09 PM

^Agreed.
Anonymous
January 21, 2008 7:04:00 PM

The E6600 vs the Q6600 you wont see a HUGE difference in playing games. As the Q6600 is only at 2.4ghz. You should put some money towards a nice CPU cooler and over clock the CPU, with some of the guides these nice people have put here on the forums it is very very easy to achieve around 3.0ghz on air. with that sli config and a 3.0 CPU dual core you will blaze through games.
January 21, 2008 7:36:57 PM

The clock speeds for both the E6600 and the Q6600 are both 2.4ghz. I just thought that the performance might be better with double the amount of cores but wasn't sure if going the Q6600 route of the Q9450.
January 21, 2008 7:46:39 PM

syquest1 said:
The clock speeds for both the E6600 and the Q6600 are both 2.4ghz. I just thought that the performance might be better with double the amount of cores but wasn't sure if going the Q6600 route of the Q9450.

If the program doesn't take advantage of multiple cores, a single core C2D at 2.4GHz will perform just as well as a Q6600.
January 21, 2008 7:52:25 PM

Well it sounds like the consensus is to over clock my C2D E6600 and not get any new processor.
January 21, 2008 8:05:19 PM

yup, but remember the new cooler as well - dead useful things those are.... :p 
a c 126 à CPUs
January 21, 2008 8:19:17 PM

syquest1 said:
Well it sounds like the consensus is to over clock my C2D E6600 and not get any new processor.


I will go ahead and put my 2 cents in here. You have a good CPU. OC'ing it will definately boost responsiveness and performance but my overall suggestion is to go with the Q9450. Reasons being is you can OC it to 3.2GHz on air, it will run cooler and use less voltage than even a Q6600 G0. You will also futurproof yourself so you wont have to upgrade again for a while and it will be ready for multicore running Games.

Currently there are only a few games that take advantage of quad core power. HL2 Episode 2(I believe TF2 and Portal do as well but can't verify), Supreme Commander and Crysis. The main difference you will see is that they offload a lot of the physics processing to the CPU leaving the GPU to process those nice polygons and textures.

Also OC'in to 3GHz+ will probably eliminate the bottleneck and show our GPUs true performance in higher resolutions. But even at 2.4GHz the Q6600 screams and I am sure the Q9450 will.

In the end it is up to you. Just take in some advice here, look at the OC guide(should be stickied on the main page) and get a good cooler like the Thermalright Ultra 120 or Zalman 9700CPNS either for your E6600 or either of the C2Q series CPUs as they will help aleviate the heat from the CPU. Don't forget the Artic Silver 5.
January 21, 2008 9:34:24 PM

Thanks Jimmysmitty. I appreciate the input. I thought about waiting for the Q9450 just for that reason....future-proofing my system. I have everything else bought and ready to go. I definitely want to be ready for games/apps that are coming out written to utilize multiple cores. I am in the middle of playing Crysis now and will finish it but I want more eye candy in the game and other games coming out and that are out now.
January 23, 2008 3:07:04 PM

It is just very confusing because of all of the variables. But I guess the bottom line is that I will be future-proofing to a degree with waiting for the Q9450 to hit store shelves.
January 23, 2008 3:28:50 PM

Get the Q6600.

#1) It's available now :>>>>
#2) It will be cheaper tha nthe Q9450 - Always a Plus.

#3) In a perfect world, it will not OC THAT much higher.
In a less than perfect world, many Mobos could hold it back and you will not even reach the same speeds.

I think the better question is Q6600 vs E8400.

8400 is cheaper.
Will OC much higher.
E8400 will destroy the Q6600 in non quad optimized programs.
Q6600 will destroy it for well optimized Quad Core Programs.

The E8400 is better now for most things.
In a year or two, the tables will start turning.

Nehalm will require new mobo and new ram along with a new chip so it will be quite an upgrade.

Your call.
January 23, 2008 3:41:37 PM

Take the time to learn to OC. Then take your E6600 to 3.4 -3.6 ghz. and wait until the Yorkies come down in price or Nehalem comes out and do a total upgrade.

At that speed the GPU will be the bottleneck not the CPU so higher OC won't add much to practical useage. Unclocked the 8400 will be a lot slower than your E6600 at 3.4 -3.6 ghz. and still bottleneck a GTX a little ...are you starting to see the advantages of OCing?
January 23, 2008 3:53:19 PM

Zen and Crax...you both make great point.s Thanks for confusing me even more...just kidding...kind of. I wonder how well the E6600 will overclock on the EVGA 780i SLI board I just bought.
January 23, 2008 5:09:24 PM

Just wait for Sandybridge!!!
January 23, 2008 5:15:12 PM

Never heard of Sandybridge. What is it?
January 23, 2008 6:08:11 PM

the Harpertown 2.33 Quad Xeon 45 nM is about 80 watts.

is the Q9450 going to have about the same power consumption ?

i see 95 and 105 watt numbers for the Q6600.

call it a 20 watt difference. if the computer is on all the
time, 480 watt hours, half a kilowatt hour a day.

3 cents in Canada, 10 cents in California. x 365 = $36.50.

i'd love to see PG&E subsidize processors the way they
subsidize compact fluorescents. they sell 2 23 watt 1680
lumen bulbs for 99 cents. way below cost.
January 23, 2008 6:09:32 PM

I use a DS3L for my Q6600 so I am not sure. I think the 780i is similiar to the 680i in a lot of respects when it comes to OCing. The quads seem to have some difficulties with OCing on 680i boards but I think the C2Ds do OK! You really don't have much choice if you plan on going SLI.
January 23, 2008 6:15:12 PM

spaztic7 said:
Just wait for Sandybridge!!!


Yeah....I can just imagine the forums arguing about how software can only use 4 cores so getting 8-32 cores is is a waste and useless power consumption! :D 
January 23, 2008 6:25:35 PM

I am going to SLI since it seems that SLI would definitely benefit me.
January 23, 2008 8:21:32 PM

Craxbax said:
Yeah....I can just imagine the forums arguing about how software can only use 4 cores so getting 8-32 cores is is a waste and useless power consumption! :D 


by then 8-32 cores will use the same amount of power as the quads we have now.
January 23, 2008 9:24:01 PM

I vote

Q9450 with a small OC... 3 - 3.2 GHZ I am sure this will be incredibly easy to achieve...

easy to achieve = 5 mins reading and then take a shot at it.
January 24, 2008 1:21:19 AM

grieve said:
I vote

Q9450 with a small OC... 3 - 3.2 GHZ I am sure this will be incredibly easy to achieve...

easy to achieve = 5 mins reading and then take a shot at it.



Really? That easy?

...Cause I did 3.0 GHz on my Q6600 without reading and just switched 3 settings.
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2008 11:29:18 AM

When were the Yorkies coming out again??


January 24, 2008 2:28:25 PM

Coming out??? I can buy them in Exton PA from a candy store whenever I want.

You cant?


oh....
January 24, 2008 3:19:47 PM

i will just throw my thoughts in cpu's are already so fast choose the cheaper one and overclock to 3.0 and you will be fine for a couple of years. any thing above 3.0 just becomes braging rights.for games your bottleneck will be your video card not the processor.
just my thoughts
January 24, 2008 3:46:49 PM

I have a Q6600 and here is my 3dmark06 score with air,
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4771136

Give me water :) 

But, I think that the new are better yes. I got beat in an overclocking contest bad with the new ones " an extreme one mind you " but, still I think they will be better yes. I will be buying one as soon as they come out.
!