Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q9450 or Q6600???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 6, 2008 10:56:38 PM

I am building a gaming ONLY rig in a couple of months and everyone is saying wait for the 45nm Yorkfield Q9450 over the Q6600, do you guys agree? I want to be able to overclock this aswell. Although I have never even built a computer in my life this will be my first one. And I want to learn to OC safely without damamgin anything. I welcome your suggestions. Thanks.

More about : q9450 q6600

March 6, 2008 11:26:43 PM

The Q9450 would be better, but if you will ONLY be gaming then save some money and get the E8400 instead (or E8200/E8300 if they are available). You will get better gaming performance for less money.

A higher clocked dual core will always beat a lower clocked quad core for gaming, (with the exception of Flight Simulator X and to a lesser extent Supreme Commander). People always go on and on about future games running better on quads - they've been saying that for 18 months now ever since the first C2Q was released. If and when games actually need quad cores to run well, upgrade to a quad THEN. They will be cheaper and faster than the quads today. There is absolutely no need to get a quad for running games NOW, again, with the exceptions of FS-X and Sup Com.
March 7, 2008 12:11:43 AM

Instead of a long pointless speech you could have answer his question.

The q9450 is only a few weeks away and it will oc better and run cooler. It will be faster and with oc it will out perform the E8400.
Related resources
March 7, 2008 12:21:57 AM

Ok, I think I will start looking more into this 45nm chip. E8400 looks good to me. This will almost always be used for gaming. My other dell will be my download machine. I might do some video compressing on this though. Thanks.

Other opinions welcome. This is a forum and I am here to learn.
March 7, 2008 12:23:21 AM

Look I just want the BEST bang for my buck. I am looking to spend around $300-$350, and deffinitely want to OC this thing. Share your thoughts.
March 7, 2008 12:24:45 AM

Then get the quad if you do any video work. Quads are more future proof but if you want to upgrade in the next 3 years then get the E8400.
March 7, 2008 12:32:54 AM

I think you should just go with the e8400. Although quads will gradually replace dual core processors, dual core processors will still be able to perform well. And about your desires to overclock-some people have been talking about the e8400 and how it has not been overclocking to well. The main complaint is that there are heating issues when you overclock it. If you want to do some serious overclocking with the e8400, then you should wait until they come out with the next stepping (processor version) in order to see if that will be better.
March 7, 2008 12:35:18 AM

bryan240g said:
Look I just want the BEST bang for my buck. I am looking to spend around $300-$350, and deffinitely want to OC this thing. Share your thoughts.


The E8400 will be the better gaming chip, and about $100 cheaper than the Q9450 as well.

If you do video encoding then consider the Q9450, but you stated earlier it was ONLY for gaming, which is why I recommended the E8400 instead. ;) 
March 7, 2008 12:37:11 AM

Ok, thank you for that. I am doing alot of reading up on these chips now. Thanks again you guys.
March 7, 2008 12:38:31 AM

karol4 said:
Instead of a long pointless speech you could have answer his question.

The q9450 is only a few weeks away and it will oc better and run cooler. It will be faster and with oc it will out perform the E8400.


Stop trying to be a smartass. I answered his question at the start of my FIRST SENTENCE "The Q9450 would be better..." but since he stated the build was for gaming I recommended a faster and cheaper CPU for the purpose.
March 7, 2008 12:41:54 AM

mikekazik1 said:
I think you should just go with the e8400. Although quads will gradually replace dual core processors, dual core processors will still be able to perform well. And about your desires to overclock-some people have been talking about the e8400 and how it has not been overclocking to well. The main complaint is that there are heating issues when you overclock it. If you want to do some serious overclocking with the e8400, then you should wait until they come out with the next stepping (processor version) in order to see if that will be better.


There are no 'heating issues' when overclocking the E8400, some mobos just aren't properly calibrated to the thermal sensor of the E8400, thus giving false (high) temperature readings.

March 7, 2008 12:44:08 AM

Ok thank you. It is for gaming but there might be an occasion where I need to do something with video, but almost always for gaming.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 12:45:34 AM

bryan240g said:
I am building a gaming ONLY rig in a couple of months and everyone is saying wait for the 45nm Yorkfield Q9450 over the Q6600, do you guys agree? I want to be able to overclock this aswell. Although I have never even built a computer in my life this will be my first one. And I want to learn to OC safely without damamgin anything. I welcome your suggestions. Thanks.


One question. Do you want to futurproof your gaming rig and make it last? If so a Q9450 would be the best bet even over a E8400. Valve has already started to put multi-threaded optimizations into their Source engine so a quad core would do you better there.

But if you plan on using it for say 2 years the E8400 would be the best. Then you could build a new Nehalem rig and go for a quad core there which by then we should see multi-threaded optimized games become more of a standard.

Although I think that it may hit sooner considering companies can now offload more to a quad core that way they can put better graphics in for the GPU to process. But we will have to wait and see how the games in 2008 pan out.
a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 12:48:06 AM

mikekazik1 said:
I think you should just go with the e8400. Although quads will gradually replace dual core processors, dual core processors will still be able to perform well. And about your desires to overclock-some people have been talking about the e8400 and how it has not been overclocking to well. The main complaint is that there are heating issues when you overclock it. If you want to do some serious overclocking with the e8400, then you should wait until they come out with the next stepping (processor version) in order to see if that will be better.


Sorry but get this right. The E8400 can OC to 4GHz easily and most can hit 3.6GHz with no voltage change. The "heat issues" are non-existent but there is problems with some mobos reading the DTS sensor wrong and causing thermal interrupts. But if he is building this rig he can go with a X38 chipset that will probably have no problem reading the DTS sensor. Or he could wait and get a P45 mobo that will be better suited for the E8400.

The one thing that seems to be the main heat issue problem is that people are putting the voltage way to high. One guy posted on this forum that he got to a 4GHz OC stable with 1.18v which is just .03v higher than the stock 1.15v.

The links you have posted show nothing except people thinking it was the chip when Anandtech looked into it and found it was the mobos not reading the DTS correctly. So the DTS is fine but some mobos are reading the DTS wrong.
March 7, 2008 12:58:13 AM

Good luck finding either one of those chips. G0 Q6600! FTW
March 7, 2008 1:01:09 AM

Quote:
Sorry but get this right. The E8400 can OC to 4GHz easily and most can hit 3.6GHz with no voltage change.


my pentium d overclocks wayy better. 2.6 to 3.2 on air woth no volt change ;) 

i would wait for the q9450, thats what im doing. though im competing with my friend, to build a better pc. he has gone with the amd route, and im trying to outperform him.
March 7, 2008 1:06:36 AM

jimmysmitty said:
One question. Do you want to futurproof your gaming rig and make it last? If so a Q9450 would be the best bet even over a E8400. Valve has already started to put multi-threaded optimizations into their Source engine so a quad core would do you better there.


Just because a game is 'multithreaded' does not mean it will run better on a quad core. Many of the multithreaded games today (like Call of Duty 4 and Crysis) only utilise two cores. Valve generally caters for the common denominator rather than the bleeding edge (you can run HL2 on DX7 hardware :p ) so if there are any optimisations for multithreading it will most likely be for dual core CPUs.

a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 1:21:36 AM

nman729 said:
Quote:
Sorry but get this right. The E8400 can OC to 4GHz easily and most can hit 3.6GHz with no voltage change.


my pentium d overclocks wayy better. 2.6 to 3.2 on air woth no volt change ;) 

i would wait for the q9450, thats what im doing. though im competing with my friend, to build a better pc. he has gone with the amd route, and im trying to outperform him.


If he goes Phenom you will win hands down.

epsilon84 said:
Just because a game is 'multithreaded' does not mean it will run better on a quad core. Many of the multithreaded games today (like Call of Duty 4 and Crysis) only utilise two cores. Valve generally caters for the common denominator rather than the bleeding edge (you can run HL2 on DX7 hardware :p ) so if there are any optimisations for multithreading it will most likely be for dual core CPUs.


Look up Valves particle test. It was released and then pulled unfortunately but there were people running on dual cores that were barely able to get 10FPS in the rain demo. Valve has been working with Intel to optimize their Source engine to scale better with more cores so yes a dual core will show better improvement fover a single but a quad will be the best. They also worked on having Physics offloaded to the CPU for HL2 EP2 for multicore CPUs.

Trust me I am one of the biggest HL fans and was reading everything I could for Episode 2 before it came out. I think this was in PC Gamer if I remember correctly. Either way they might be implementing the full Particle system into Episode 3 which will run better on a quad core. I hope so as the rain effects looked so freakin awesome.

Here is a YouTube of the Rain demo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwD6u960joI

Here is a bit better quality video of the whole demo:

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Zeke129/video_player?id=J...

March 7, 2008 1:32:24 AM

Technology demos and actual in game multithreading are totally different things. It would be silly to assume that a quad core will have twice the performance of a dual core just by looking at the Valve particle test - it's designed to show maximum scaling potential on quad cores - just as DX10 demos are designed to show the full extent of the shader effects from the API.

The hardest part about getting a game to take full advantage of quads is that apart from physics and AI, there is not a whole lot to offload to the other cores. You may see *some* benefit from a quad core, but would it be enough to offset the higher clockspeeds often seen on a dual core?

I'd use Supreme Commander as an example, it's one of the few games that can actually take advantage of quad cores. Yet, an E8400 (or E6850) still outperforms a Q6600 due to the sheer 600MHz clockspeed advantage, despite giving up 2 cores.

March 7, 2008 1:43:56 AM

I would go for the quad core simply because like it has already been said more games are going to be using multi thread. Also no benchmarks exist for these processor officially yet that i know of... since the release date is only a week away i would wait it out and see.

My opinion i would go for the quad core
a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 1:52:57 AM

epsilon84 said:
Technology demos and actual in game multithreading are totally different things. It would be silly to assume that a quad core will have twice the performance of a dual core just by looking at the Valve particle test - it's designed to show maximum scaling potential on quad cores - just as DX10 demos are designed to show the full extent of the shader effects from the API.

The hardest part about getting a game to take full advantage of quads is that apart from physics and AI, there is not a whole lot to offload to the other cores. You may see *some* benefit from a quad core, but would it be enough to offset the higher clockspeeds often seen on a dual core?

I'd use Supreme Commander as an example, it's one of the few games that can actually take advantage of quad cores. Yet, an E8400 (or E6850) still outperforms a Q6600 due to the sheer 600MHz clockspeed advantage, despite giving up 2 cores.
http://images.tomshardware.com/2008/02/13/wolfdale_shrinks_transistors/supreme.png


I understand your reasoning although the difference is marginal and with 600MHz difference it only improve by a little over 2FPS. So lets test that with a Q6600 at 3GHz and see what the difference would be? My point is that the Particle simulator is not just a tech demo. Valve has plans to impliment it fully, not sure when but they know the power is out there to use and want to use it.

My main point is that once this is implimented a quad core will more than likely scale better with it than a dual core. Of course when is the question but knowing Valve it will probably be introduced with Episode 3 as they will probably develop a new engine for HL3 maybe call it Source 2.

I guess thats why I love Valve though. They scaled Source so well that it can play on DX7 machines if need be although if anyone still has Windows 98 I would be amazed. And the nice thing is they are always improving upon Source such as offloading the physics to a CPU for Episode 2 and using great particle effects for TF2. I just wish other PC gae companies would follow Valves lead.
March 7, 2008 2:03:10 AM

jimmysmitty said:
I understand your reasoning although the difference is marginal and with 600MHz difference it only improve by a little over 2FPS. So lets test that with a Q6600 at 3GHz and see what the difference would be? My point is that the Particle simulator is not just a tech demo. Valve has plans to impliment it fully, not sure when but they know the power is out there to use and want to use it.

Why overclock the Q6600 to 3GHz and leave the E8400 at stock? Of course, on a quad optimised game, a 3GHz quad would beat a 3GHz dual. But my point is that the E8400 is clocked higher (whether it be stock or overclocked) than a Q6600, and this would be enough to 'compensate' for the lack of 2 cores.

Quote:
My main point is that once this is implimented a quad core will more than likely scale better with it than a dual core. Of course when is the question but knowing Valve it will probably be introduced with Episode 3 as they will probably develop a new engine for HL3 maybe call it Source 2.

I'm sure it would scale better on a quad, but by how much? Would 2 extra cores be enough to overtake a higher clocked dual core? Again, reference the Sup Com benchmarks for my reasoning.
March 7, 2008 2:06:50 AM

i was amazed at the difference in graphics from half life 2 to ep 1 and 2(got the box for christmas) and in g mod, way better than gmod 9(so glad i bought it). totally agree with you there man, it looks awesom on my dx9 pc and i get decent rates.(i love hdr)
a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 2:09:57 AM

epsilon84 said:
Why overclock the Q6600 to 3GHz and leave the E8400 at stock? Of course, on a quad optimised game, a 3GHz quad would beat a 3GHz dual. But my point is that the E8400 is clocked higher (whether it be stock or overclocked) than a Q6600, and this would be enough to 'compensate' for the lack of 2 cores.

I'm sure it would scale better on a quad, but by how much? Would 2 extra cores be enough to overtake a higher clocked dual core? Again, reference the Sup Com benchmarks for my reasoning.


I agree with you on the OC but 2FPS at stock isnt big enough for 600MHz. Maybe a E8400 @ 4GHz will make a change but probably still to little of one.

The only thing here is that SupCom has a different engine. The way Source is setup it already scale better with more cores. Maybe not as much with a quad core yet but it still uses a CPU quite a bit. Different engines make a difference.

I am going based on what valve has said. I will need to find more info from them but it will be hard. Either way I just suggest a Q9450/Q6600 for those wanting to make the system last more than 2-3 years.

The link I posted with the full particle video, one guy stated his dual core would only get 10FPS in the rain part thus that leads me to believe that a quad core will perform better since the guy in the video had no problems. Of course knowing his specs would be nice but still considering the particle test is for multi-threading it would seem he was running a quad core.

I guess we will have to wait until Episode 3 to see what happens and see if Valve does impliment this technology into Source. I sure hope so as it would be awesome.
March 7, 2008 2:43:27 AM

So basically you guys have confused the hell out of me. That's ok though, I geuss I just need to keep on reading. Luckily I have time on my side. I still have no idea which to choose. Half you guys say one thing and the other half says the other. I appreciate the feedback though. Keep it coming.
March 7, 2008 4:24:16 AM

bryan240g said:
So basically you guys have confused the hell out of me. That's ok though, I geuss I just need to keep on reading. Luckily I have time on my side. I still have no idea which to choose. Half you guys say one thing and the other half says the other. I appreciate the feedback though. Keep it coming.


Hehehe. :p 

Basically, current games run best on dual core CPUs, because at any given price point, a dual core CPU would be clocked higher than a quad core CPU. The extra cores mean nothing if the game can't take advantage of them. Dual core CPUs also overclock higher than quad cores due to lower heat output.

In future, heavily multithreaded games may run better on quads, but we are talking a few years from now. I think it's better to just get a cheaper dual core CPU now (that runs games better than more expensive quads) and when finally games do start taking advantage of quad cores, upgrade to a quad. By then, they will be cheaper and more powerful than the quads you can get today.
March 7, 2008 5:50:51 AM

the q9550 may turn out to out peform the q6600 but the q9450 will not the fsb is too high and multiplier too low

anyone looking to build a quad system should still use the q6600

i have posted this for months

do the math, 1700/1333 = Y Yx 2.83 (q9550) is only 3.6ghz

i ship systems at 400fsb and 3.6ghz, with 100% sucess rate no q6600 fails to run 3.6ghz

some can be pushed 3.8ghz.

this was posted 6 months ago:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244351-28-61ghz-1ghz
March 7, 2008 7:20:10 AM

epsilon84 said:
There are no 'heating issues' when overclocking the E8400, some mobos just aren't properly calibrated to the thermal sensor of the E8400, thus giving false (high) temperature readings.

Boy was that an all-encompassing generalisation?!
Makes you sound like you're on Intel's payroll....
March 7, 2008 7:28:25 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Sorry but get this right. The E8400 can OC to 4GHz easily and most can hit 3.6GHz with no voltage change. The "heat issues" are non-existent but there is problems with some mobos reading the DTS sensor wrong and causing thermal interrupts.

Once again, read my above reply.
Bit of an all-encompassing comment.... :non: 
March 7, 2008 9:03:38 AM

LukeBird said:
Boy was that an all-encompassing generalisation?!
Makes you sound like you're on Intel's payroll....


Uhh, so whats YOUR take on the situation? Go on, spill the beans, I'm sure many would wanna hear the dirty little secret Intel is hiding with their 'overheating' chip. :lol: 
March 7, 2008 9:27:11 AM

epsilon84 said:
Uhh, so whats YOUR take on the situation? Go on, spill the beans, I'm sure many would wanna hear the dirty little secret Intel is hiding with their 'overheating' chip. :lol: 

Very good, very good!
Did I say there WAS a problem, no, did you read too much into my comment, absolutely!
It does amuse me when people do that.
I would refer you to your comment, where you said "There are no 'heating issues' when overclocking the E8400", all I said was that was a rather sweeping generalisation! And it was, a better response would have been-
The reported heat issues with a faulty thermal diode are in fact generally regarded as an issue with reading the information from the diode, not a faulty diode.
Feel free to post back more baiting for me though, I'm quite happy to play nicely!
Because you didn't even bother me with your threat/bait or whatever you want to call it, sweetheart! :lol: 
March 7, 2008 9:32:10 AM

karol4 said:
The q9450 is only a few weeks away


Topcover said:
the release date is only a week away


Anyone have any reliable information about this?
March 7, 2008 9:38:17 AM

LukeBird said:
Very good, very good!
Did I say there WAS a problem, no, did you read too much into my comment, absolutely!
It does amuse me when people do that.
I would refer you to your comment, where you said "There are no 'heating issues' when overclocking the E8400", all I said was that was a rather sweeping generalisation! And it was, a better response would have been-
The reported heat issues with a faulty thermal diode are in fact generally regarded as an issue with reading the information from the diode, not a faulty diode.
Feel free to post back more baiting for me though, I'm quite happy to play nicely!
Because you didn't even bother me with your threat/bait or whatever you want to call it, sweetheart! :lol: 


*sigh*

Read up and learn. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3...

As for baiting, I'm not the one accusing people of being on Intel's payroll. :ange:  :non: 

March 7, 2008 9:42:06 AM

epsilon84 said:
*sigh*

Read up and learn. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3...

As for baiting, I'm not the one accusing people of being on Intel's payroll. :ange:  :non: 

Sorry, you're proving what I just said, I don't get it? :pt1cable: 
I understand that humour doesn't come across in forums, but my comment was not an accusation, it was a playful dig at your comment being over-protective of Intel....
:D 
March 7, 2008 9:57:51 AM

LukeBird said:
Sorry, you're proving what I just said, I don't get it? :pt1cable: 
I understand that humour doesn't come across in forums, but my comment was not an accusation, it was a playful dig at your comment being over-protective of Intel....
:D 


How am I over protective of Intel? I'm not denying that the DTS issues don't exist, it's simply not a 'heating issue' at all.

It's all a play of words anyway, if the poster had said 'temp diode issues' I would have had no problems with it, but to imply that the E8x00 chips 'overheat' is inaccurate.
March 7, 2008 10:30:43 AM

epsilon84 said:
How am I over protective of Intel? I'm not denying that the DTS issues don't exist, it's simply not a 'heating issue' at all.

It's all a play of words anyway, if the poster had said 'temp diode issues' I would have had no problems with it, but to imply that the E8x00 chips 'overheat' is inaccurate.

Fair enough.
Your comment panged of Intel fanboyism in my eyes, but either way, no offence was intended to come across! :D 
March 7, 2008 10:54:54 AM

The E8x00s are great chips and the temp reading problems are over blown. What I do suspect is that the E8x00s and 45mm in general are increasingly susceptible to electromigration (EM) and subsequent degradation at lower voltages and temps. EM is very temperature dependent so accuracy should be important. How significant? It is up for debate and probably not significant at moderate OC up to 4ghz for most Wolfies and of course less for the Yorkies. The jury is still out. There may be more reasons that Intel doesn't release these chips at the 4ghz they so easily do than just trying to make a buck. I also think that as the chips shrink this will become an increasing problem under current technology and OCers will have to pay more attention to this.

My vote still remains for a quad over the dual core as I see there is no real world performance penalty at the present going quad yet there is going forward for the dual cores. Every tech article I have read points to the MHZ race is over and multithreading is the focus to increase performance.
March 7, 2008 10:56:33 AM

I say you be like me and build two system and have the best of both worls :p . I am building me a newer"" system and will be getting the new quads coming out. I have a q6600 now at 3.6. I am giving all my old hardware to my fiance.
GA-P35-DQ6
ASUS EAX1900XTX
Q6600
Drives,,
Case "Antec900",,

I was going to give her my crucial Ballistix but, now I am thinking about selling my two gigs on ebay because I had an issue with 2gbs the other day "I have Vista Ultimate" and switched it out to my 4gb kit and haven't had the issue again but, the timings on the 4gb kit are bad in my eyes so I am going to buy another kit with better timings and give her my current corsair dominator kit.

My new setup will be,
GA-EX38-DQ6
8800GTS 512 = Already have this
Reaper ddr2 1066 4gb kit or crucial ddr2 800 4gb kit,
drives...
case Antec 900
Q9... , Whichever I decide to get..

a c 126 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 7, 2008 11:45:55 AM

bryan240g said:
So basically you guys have confused the hell out of me. That's ok though, I geuss I just need to keep on reading. Luckily I have time on my side. I still have no idea which to choose. Half you guys say one thing and the other half says the other. I appreciate the feedback though. Keep it coming.


LOL.... Sorry. There will always be those who prefer more cores and those who prefer faster clocked but less core. I prefer quad cores but what matters to you or anyone else is if you plan on using the system for a certain period of time. Thats when quads may benefit you.

But if you plan on mainly gaming a dual core would be the best for now and then build a new system when Nehalem comes out. Maybe go crazy like I plan to and build a 8 core system.

dragonsprayer said:
the q9550 may turn out to out peform the q6600 but the q9450 will not the fsb is too high and multiplier too low

anyone looking to build a quad system should still use the q6600

i have posted this for months

do the math, 1700/1333 = Y Yx 2.83 (q9550) is only 3.6ghz

i ship systems at 400fsb and 3.6ghz, with 100% sucess rate no q6600 fails to run 3.6ghz

some can be pushed 3.8ghz.

this was posted 6 months ago:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244351-28-61ghz-1ghz


Um the Q9300 was tested by one site and was shown to be able to keep up with the Q6600 at stock speeds and even though the Q6600 was able to OC higher the Q9300 was able to beat it though under clocked.

LukeBird said:
Once again, read my above reply.
Bit of an all-encompassing comment.... :non: 


My main point is that the DTS sensor is running fine but it is a newer technology that has not yet been full calibrated by all mobos. Of course if a newbie OC'er OC's it and they put too much voltage then yea the CPU will have temp problems. Any CPU will. Just like if you OC a G0 Q6600 to 3GHz and put 1.45v on it. You think it will get hot? Probably. Most G0 Q6600's can be OC'ed to 3GHz with no voltage bump, mine included.

But then again thats not the CPU manu's fault. More of the newb not knowing what they are doing and thats why we are here.
March 7, 2008 11:53:46 AM

jimmysmitty said:
My main point is that the DTS sensor is running fine but it is a newer technology that has not yet been full calibrated by all mobos. Of course if a newbie OC'er OC's it and they put too much voltage then yea the CPU will have temp problems. Any CPU will. Just like if you OC a G0 Q6600 to 3GHz and put 1.45v on it. You think it will get hot? Probably. Most G0 Q6600's can be OC'ed to 3GHz with no voltage bump, mine included.

But then again thats not the CPU manu's fault. More of the newb not knowing what they are doing and thats why we are here.

Indeed, I won't reply directly to you, as epsilon any I already bashed our minds out a few posts up! :D 
March 7, 2008 12:32:07 PM

so is there reliable word on when they'll be out? some said in this thread it was next week, some in a couple weeks, but my post asking it got lost between the personal attacks.

Anyone know when theyll be released?
March 7, 2008 1:52:59 PM

I think there is some overheating with the E8400 depending on quality of the chip sample.

If you reach 4.0GHz with 1.2V and a properly installed HSF, it's unlikely you're overheating.

But if you find you require 1.4V to reach 4.0GHz or perhaps botch your HSF mounting, then due to the high power density of the 45nm chips, you could very well be running hot. There are no benchmarks that I know of comparing the ability of different HSF to cool high power densities; general engineering principles would suggest a thick copper core (base) where any and all of the heatpipes meet as close to the center as possible.
March 7, 2008 11:00:55 PM

WR said:
I think there is some overheating with the E8400 depending on quality of the chip sample.

If you reach 4.0GHz with 1.2V and a properly installed HSF, it's unlikely you're overheating.

But if you find you require 1.4V to reach 4.0GHz or perhaps botch your HSF mounting, then due to the high power density of the 45nm chips, you could very well be running hot. There are no benchmarks that I know of comparing the ability of different HSF to cool high power densities; general engineering principles would suggest a thick copper core (base) where any and all of the heatpipes meet as close to the center as possible.


Any CPU that is overvolted by 20%+ is naturally more at risk of 'overheating'. It doesn't just apply to the E8400. The power density may be greater, but the actual wattage output is less than that of an overclocked 65nm C2D at equivalent, let alone higher, voltages.

March 8, 2008 3:02:33 AM

Karol4 wrote :

The q9450 is only a few weeks away



Topcover wrote :

the release date is only a week away



Anyone have any reliable information about this?

Agreed, anyone know anything concrete? I thought is was the 12th or something but think I am just confusing it with the gx2?
March 8, 2008 3:47:45 AM

I didnt read all the posts because of the pointless banter but if the OP or anyone is looking to build a gaming computer they would be smart to invest in a quad core. Here are some games that use more then 2 cores; COD4, Crysis, COH, Hellgate, Bioshock, and SupCom. If nobody noticed i didnt mention games like Oblivion and FEAR because i believe they came out three years ago. Newer games use multiple cores, I know i have a quad and play all of the above games.
Oh, btw at 3.0Ghz my quad load temps are 39C Tcase.
Also OP Q9450 is what you want. A great OC with controllable temps, good combo.
March 8, 2008 12:14:48 PM

karol4 said:
Instead of a long pointless speech you could have answer his question.

The q9450 is only a few weeks away and it will oc better and run cooler. It will be faster and with oc it will out perform the E8400.
LOL
!