Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Why q6600 When There's q9300?

Why q6600 When There's q9300?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Why q6600 When There's q9300?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
Alextreme   02-02-2008 at 06:59:52 PM

I see the q6600 for something like $280, and I hear a lot of good things about it. However, ignoring the dual cores, why should I buy a q6600 if there is the q9300 and other quad core penryns? It seems that the q9300 is better than the q6600 in every respect and isn't even that much more expensive. (Maybe $30 more)

I'm interested in your two-cents.

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
spuddyt   02-02-2008 at 07:06:29 PM
- 0 +

I don't know much about the q9300, but from what i know, it isn't out yet, and also it is likely that it has a high FSB and a low multiplier, which means it doesn't overclock well - thus forcing enthusiasts to go with the higher end solutions, instead of just OC'ing the crap out of a mid range


Message edited by spuddyt on 02-02-2008 at 07:28:09 PM
Reply to spuddyt
jamiepotter   02-02-2008 at 07:26:57 PM
- 0 +

Yeah, the Yorkfields will likely be coming out in March. It should overclock better and use less power because of the 45nm processing, but you'd have to wait and see. Internet lore has it that somone got an OC of around 3.7 with a q9300, which is not at all shabby if it's true.

It's all speculation at the moment. I'm waiting for decent benchmarks and trusted reviews myself. Remember that that's not that much point even having a quad at the moment. One thing you could do is get a cheap dual core now and upgrade later, making sure you've got a compatible mobo.

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to jamiepotter
cnumartyr   02-02-2008 at 07:30:17 PM
- 0 +

jamiepotter wrote :

Yeah, the Yorkfields will likely be coming out in March. It should overclock better and use less power because of the 45nm processing, but you'd have to wait and see. Internet lore has it that somone got an OC of around 3.7 with a q9300, which is not at all shabby if it's true.

It's all speculation at the moment. I'm waiting for decent benchmarks and trusted reviews myself. Remember that that's not that much point even having a quad at the moment. One thing you could do is get a cheap dual core now and upgrade later, making sure you've got a compatible mobo.




493 MHz FSB to get that, won't happen on air.

People like Q6600s because of the 9x multiplier.

Q9300 = 7.5
Q9450 = 8

They will all max out around the same.

Oh and the Q9300 has 6 MB of L2 Cache and not 12 like the other Yorkfields.

------------------------------ TeamBAG Member
 Reply to cnumartyr
spuddyt   02-02-2008 at 07:36:35 PM
- 0 +

so there is your answer - if you want to OC, the q6600 will be better.

Reply to spuddyt
Alextreme   02-02-2008 at 09:15:59 PM
- 0 +

We'll see. I'd probably end up getting the q9450 instead of the q9300 anyway. Thanks people.

Reply to Alextreme
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Why q6600 When There's q9300?
Go to:

There are 774 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.259 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them