Q6600, E8400 or Q9450

I'm in a similar position as you and have been reading what people have had to say of late regarding buying CPU's.
I suppose if you can hang on and aren't on a really tight budget then the q9450 has to be the logical buy but if you want to save a bit of cash and put it towards extra RAM or something then the q6600 is the winner.
That's the conclusuion i've come to and am now just deciding wether to hang on for the q9450. (probably will)

The issue I have is, the new Wolfdale Dual cores are overclocking up to 4ghz on air.
Now, as I will be mostly gaming, and watching movies, it almost doesnt make sense to got for the new quad.
It may run cooler, but its not going to overclock any higher than the Q6600, due to its lower multiplier...

Q6600, hands down, unless you can wait two months for a Q9450. The quote above shows why you should prefer a quad to a dual. A year from now games and other software will benefit from quads more than now.

The Q6600 is supposed to drop to $224 (tray price) when the Q9450 is out. I guess $250 retail is very likely indeed. The Q9450 will probably be $350 retail, maybe less if supply can keep up with demand.

Two months of wait for q9450? That's only if things goes as bad as it could?

Yes. Intel has only specified "Q1 2008" which may be as far as March 31. Of course, if things go well, they may release the Q9450 in February.

If I were in your shoes, my last choice would be the Q6600. In 95% of applications, the E8400 is going to outperform the Q6600 at stock clock. If you overclock the E8400 to 4.2Ghz or higher, then it will blow away the Quad. You'll be lucky to reach 3.5-3.6 on the Q6600 G0 stepping. For the types of things you will be using your computer for (eg - gaming, surfing, normal apps) there isn't really an advantage for quad cores. I am currently using an e6400 @ 3.33 Ghz and the only time it really maxes out is when I'm encoding video. If I want to play games while encoding video I can simply put the encoding to lowest priority and then game just fine.

If you have more patience then I do, then wait for the q9450, which should have similar overclocking potential to the q9650 which hits about 4 Ghz. I didn't want to wait till March so I went ahead and ordered the e8400. The few minutes you MIGHT save encoding video on a q6600 are not worth the loss of fps in games and slower performance in most of your other standard applications. The multitasking arguments are pretty weak as most open applications running in the background typically suck little to no cpu usage if they aren't actively being used. However, if you plan on doing a full virus scan, decompress a 10 gig file, have some video rendering in premiere going on, and play a cpu intensive game all at the same time then I could see where you might run into trouble. But honestly, who does all these at the same time anyway?

I agree with Winkgood, for the OP it's E8400 ftw. For the stuff he's running the E8400 will outperform both Q6600 & Q9450 at stock, has more overclocking headroom than both, runs cooler than both, and is cheaper.

It only makes sense to get a quad if:
- you do quite a bit of audio/video encoding or rendering
- you mega-task with several CPU-intensive tasks running at the same time (office, virus scans, web browsers, etc don't count)
- you play a lot of Supreme Commander with huge maps and tons of units

There is, however, a small chance that game developers will transform their coding philosophies overnight and we'll see quad-core optimized games coming out en masse later this year. More likely though it'll be the second half of 2009 before that happens, so if you're a gamer it makes more sense to get the E8400 now and then swap it out for a fast Yorkfield in mid-2009.

I agree. Though the 4 core is surely gonna be the bandwagon in a couple of years. The wolf at ya door is the wise update for now. Looking forward to my new rig.. (wolfie 8400 with an atix2! - then another x2 whenever I have another 400 dollars to blow.. Though 4 core CPU and 4 gpus does also seem to make intrinsic sense..
Matt

Ahh...wtf is up with the multiple personalities there ^

I can understand people who buy extreme quad cores, they want to get best of the best. But it is simply stupid to buy mid range quad now for games and simple apps. And surely 42nm dual > 65nm quad ! Quads are now a marketing bullshit just like 64 bits were some time ago or mmx long before that. Back then you could read things like - "64bits apps will be few times faster than 32bits in a year !". Where are 64bits now ? If u need 4gigs ram thats ok to have 64bits, and you actually need that only if u use OSes like Vista. But performance wise - 64 or 32 bits no difference... Ofcourse there is a segment of market which needs 64 bits, 8 cores, SSE16 and so on, there always have been such a segment and there always have been special line of products. Now whoever buys mid range quad for gaming is a sucker. If games ever catch up with multicore processing that won't be happen next month and you will be changing your system by then anyway (probably to 35nm dual quad for half price of todays extreme quad processor)...

Haha, that sucks.

I predict (that's sounds rather thundermany doesn't it..?!) that we are gonna see a veritable surge, here on in, of pluri-threaded games that will be only, more and more capable of taking advantage of 4 (AND SURELY ALREADY CONSIDERING 8) cpu cores. I wouldn't be surprised if the second installment of Crysis comes with the same engine, of course, but drastically modified to work better around multiple cpu setups (and hopefully also multiple gpu setups)
Personally, I was planning on Wolfy for my up coming rig, but am now seriously reconsidering..
Ryan

Ryan, stay off those porn sites or your brother will own you lol! Having your brother hang something over you to tell parents aka blackmail.....priceless!


I was also looking at the 9450 (flight sim X). I play graphic intensive games but I don't do other apps while gaming. Im torn between ATIx2 and Nvidia's 9800. Funny how I have a headache now even though I dont plan on upgrading till June at the latest.

Oh and who was the person that said 2 Penryns and crossfire atix2...thanx! Now that's in my head giving me a spliting headache now.

Scan.co.uk

9450 - Item due on 17/03/2008

Can you wait that long? . Winkgood that post really helped me make up my mind

[quotemsg=1787729,27,304378]I posted this in another thread but I thought I should add this to this thread as well as an eratta to what I said earlier:



I've already seen enough benchmarks to know that most games won't take advantage of four cores. I also know that when you overclock either CPU to these high frequencies (3.6 and 4.2), that the bottleneck is mainly going to be in the video card so gaming performance isn't really a factor in deciding which CPU to go with. Instead I chose two applications that people frequently use and could potentially utilize four cores. DVD Shrink to convert dual layer DVDs to single layer and virtualdub to convert an HD movie to DivX.


Quick Question (s)

1- So the most important upgrade would be the video card. Should I go with ATIx2 or NVidia 9800 (I've been happy with ATI because Ive had no problems with the cards that I've owned and have lasted a lifetime. NVidia on the other hand, the one card I had on my ALienware laptop fried after 1 1/2 years of use) Im curious which one of the new cards would be noticable, great eyecandy, and high framerates? Crossfire or SLI?
Is crossfire and SLI overrated?

2- Is overclocking not worth it?

My head is spinning like the girl in The Exorsist (not barfing split pea soup yet):

A- Q6600 with SLI or Crossfire (new cards)
B- Q9450 with SLI or Crossfire (new cards)
C- E8400 with SLI or Crossfire (new Cards)
D- Either Q6600, Q9450, E8400 with either ATIx2 or NVIDIA 9800


3- Youre saying that the Q6600 which will probably drop in price soon, is the way to go? Would the Yorkfield Penryn performance be better for Flight Sim x or Q6600 will do just fine?

Until the actual release of both of these cards, or they get into the hands of someone reputable like tomshardware, then I would hold back on my decision for buying a video card. If pricing is an issue for you then you might want to wait to see what the actual prices float around once they are released. Toms had an article on the 3870x2 briefly which I was luckily able to read before they took it down. What I saw I wasn't all that impressed with as it had such a narrow lead on the 8800 Ultra. I expected more from a card coming out so much later and with 2 GPU's. Once again, though, you should wait for both to be released before deciding which if you are set on having a 2 GPU solution. What I did is buy the evga version of the 8800 gt which I plan on stepping up if there is anything worth it in the next couple months. If not then I still got a great card and didn't spend too much on it. Of course, this limits me to only getting an Nvidia card as eVGA doesn't make ATI based cards but I'm willing to live with that.

Currently, ATI scales better in crossfire than Nvidia does so you'd get close to the same performance with two 3870's as two 8800 gt's. There are also more boards with crossfire support. I prefer Intel chipsets. I would wait and see what happens with the dual GPU boards though.

Overclocking is definitely worth it as most Core2's will overclock a big chunk. If you are strictly gaming then save youself a bit of money and get the E8400 and overclock it. If you are going to be doing any video editing, video encoding, or file compression and you want your processor now then go for the Q6600. As shown in my tests, even at 3.6 Ghz, it will blow the pants off of the E8400 at 4.2 GHz in the apps I was using. You'll also have more flexibility of using your computer for other things while encoding/editing.

If you decide to wait for the 9800x2 to come out then you might as well wait for your CPU as well. In a month or two we could see price drops on the E8400, Q6600, and the Q9650 should be out. I hate waiting when I have my mind set to build a new machine but maybe you have more patience

Winkgood, have you thought about running tests with games?

The Q6600 is supposed to drop to $224 tray price in a few months.

For FSX, you don't need either SLI or Crossfire. For example 8800GTX SLI does 22 fps just like 8800GTX single card, in some benchmarks I've seen. A single high-end card like the 3870X2 will be plenty. However, that game's fps go up almost proportionally with the clocks, and it benefits enormously from quads (as in, 80% faster on Q6600 compared to E6600 at the same clock). I recommend you try this combination:

Q6600 now, or Q9450 at the end or March
3870X2 (or 9800GTX if you can wait, probably March too)
Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme/Scythe SFF21F

Overclock the quad as far as it goes and you'll get the best FSX performance possible.

Wait for a few weeks and Go for Q9450 ^_^ you will not regret it ^_^

IMO you will be happier with the Q6600, especially if you plan on keeping it for a few years.

What you should be worried about is the fact that your PSU choice is a tier 5 "not recommended". See it in the Official XS Tiered PSU Manufacturer Brand Listing Phase III. Ultra does have a couple entries in the tier 2 category, unfortunately the X-Connect isn't one of them.

The Silencer 610 is an excellent choice, I recently built 3 Q6600 w/ P35-DQ6s and they all had the silencer 610s. Yes the Q6600 will work with the DS3R no problem. You can OC the Q6600 to 3G very easily without any voltage increase so I recommend it. With that OC you probably should get an aftermarket HS. It's not required but I like to keep my CPU as cool as possible. I use a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme CPU Cooler (apparently discontinued) with a Scythe S-FLEX SFF21F 120mm Fan. It is a tall HS and not cheap. I believe it will fit in the M998 but you will need to remove the CPU pipe from the side. I know that it fits in the Antec P182 Case which is on a ridiculous sale right now. It's a nice quiet case but not flashy like the Ultra. I also haven't looked at the M998 features. There are other really good coolers out there as well. Here is a review of the Ultra 120 with benches of some others including the Tunic Tower, also on sale at Newegg. There are others that have come out after this review so you may want to check the forums for additional suggestions.

When you OC remember to change the RAM multiplier in the MIT to 2.4 to keep the RAM clocked at 800. When you OC, send me a PM and I'll give you all of the settings.

"because I'm a graphic designer and run multiple large programs (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.), that I should seriously consider the Q6600."

Yes...seriously you should (and a better PSU.)

The Kingwin looks like a ripoff of the ultra120, although it has less heatpipes. I'm personally not familiar with it, however it looks like it uses the infamous push pin mounting system found on the stock cooler. I would go with a cooler that uses a backplate, those push pins have to be the worst mounting system I've ever seen.

I don't know about that RAM, but if someone is using it with success then I suspect it is OK.

There are many good ones and everyone has their preference. I just caution against the push pin mounting design, no matter who makes it. It's supposedly easier to install but it is fraught with failures. The pins loosen up and the CPU cooks. A back plate is a must IMO. I will see what I can find.

If you overclock the Q6600 more than just a bit then yes, you should get an aftermarket cooler. Assuming that low noise is the #1 priority and performance #2 and price #3 (like it is for me), I suggest this strategy:

Pick the quietest coolers from this list. i..e those that show 38.3 dbA in the second chart.
http://www.anandtech.com/casecooli [...] i=3068&p=5
Make sure you eliminate those that also appear at the bottom of the chart, i.e. noisy under load, like the Zalmans.

Then check their performance on the other pages of that review. Based on that, you'll probably like the Scythe Ninja or Thermalright Ultima-90. The Tuniq Tower is an exception, i.e. I like it anyway despite the dBA going up under load, but that's because it has incredible performance.