Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Q9300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 7, 2008 11:40:47 PM

I was really excited when I heard that there will be a Yorkie with the same closckspeed as the Q6600 and they will be under the same price. After reading this article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html) though, i got mixed feelings...

Well, you read and decide.

I really hope they release a midrange board that can handle that soon. I really am eager to go for an upgrade.

More about : q9300

March 8, 2008 12:24:55 AM

Awesome, even less e8400's will be produced so that they can make the quads, further screwing me over. Now it will be June before there is enough supply for the massive price gouging to go away.
March 8, 2008 12:36:21 AM

If I could afford it i'd go with a Q9300 over a Q6600, they OC to about the same, (100 MHz diff. but the new arch will probably make up for that) use less power (very important in my book) and cost the same.

I'd say its a winner, and maybe in the near future will see a chipset capable of 500 MHz FSB

Then Again maybe not because of QuickPath.

Anyway this CPU is great, it's so delicious and moist.

Edit: I'm considering the common 3.6 Ghz OC achievable by most of the Q6600 for my analysis, I know some good chips even get to 4 GHz, but at that point thermal dissipation must be a bitch that forces you to watercool.
Related resources
March 8, 2008 12:47:08 AM

Personally I'd spring for the Q9450... costs more... but I'd prefer the higher multiplier and cache. I'm limited to 430 FSB due to ram.
March 8, 2008 1:47:27 AM

SirCrono said:
If I could afford it i'd go with a Q9300 over a Q6600, they OC to about the same, (100 MHz diff. but the new arch will probably make up for that) use less power (very important in my book) and cost the same.

I'd say its a winner, and maybe in the near future will see a chipset capable of 500 MHz FSB

Then Again maybe not because of QuickPath.

Anyway this CPU is great, it's so delicious and moist.

Edit: I'm considering the common 3.6 Ghz OC achievable by most of the Q6600 for my analysis, I know some good chips even get to 4 GHz, but at that point thermal dissipation must be a bitch that forces you to watercool.


acually I've herd of people getting to 4GHz on Air you just need to Lap the CPU and the Heatsink.
March 8, 2008 2:53:34 AM

blackpanther26 said:
acually I've herd of people getting to 4GHz on Air you just need to Lap the CPU and the Heatsink.

I've thought it would be possible but haven't heard of someone achieveing it, guess the Q6600 is a sturdy CPU.

And it has more cache too.

I hope we get a price cut now that this new part has been introduced.

Still, if there is no price cut I'd still go with the Q9300.
March 8, 2008 2:55:26 AM

Does anyone know when they are going to come out? I remember reading somewhere it was going to be some time in mid march and have been waiting to make my new build based on this. I keep thinking that they come out on the 12th, but that might just be me confusing them with the gx2's not sure...
March 8, 2008 2:52:23 PM

one site said sometime next week (10-14 probably) the gx2 comes out on the 18th
March 9, 2008 3:21:11 AM

I was also planning to make a new build out of this instead of the Q6600 but I wasn't planning to run the quad on stock. Based on the current lineup of mobos, only a few might be able to handle this Yorkie (high end ones). I have a tight budget so if in a month's time there arent any midrange board that will take this CPU to it's full potential, I might go for the Q6600. :( 
March 9, 2008 4:23:29 AM

Depending on supply/demand ($$$ and availability), I'd likely still take the Q9300 despite the cache difference as the article shows the Q9300 still coming out ahead.

Even only OCing the Q9300 to 3.0Ghz (DDR2-800 1:1 unless you OC the memory) will still give amazing results, and I'd rather put more $ into a video card. Once more apps and games become optimised for all the cores, it'll be like CPU upgrades for free and will extend the life of the Q9300 until Nehalem's 2nd gen I'm sure.

In the mean time, I don't think you'll see hardly any in-game differences between a 4Ghz E8400 or a 3Ghz Q9300, it'll come down to the video card. But if your main PC use is gaming AND you upgrade your system fairly often, I'd say go with the E8400. If you buy more for the long-term, I think getting a Q9300/Q9450 is a great investment.
March 9, 2008 10:42:16 AM

SkorchedPC said:
I was really excited when I heard that there will be a Yorkie with the same closckspeed as the Q6600 and they will be under the same price. After reading this article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html) though, i got mixed feelings...

Well, you read and decide.

I really hope they release a midrange board that can handle that soon. I really am eager to go for an upgrade.


Well, it doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over the Q6600. If I were an Intel fan, I wouldn't bother with it just for today's games. I do expect to see more games support quad cores by the end of 2008.

What looks odd to me, is that overclocking it doesn't beat the year old tech of a Q6600. That's an argument aimed at the Phenom quite often and it should be directed at the Q9300 too.

I'd say all the Q9300 has going for it over the Q6600 are the thermals. Me, I can't wait for the 45nm Phenom's. A Deneb @ 3.2 is what I really need right now. I'm debating over whether it's worth it getting a 790 board and a Phenom 9750 in May and then going Deneb in February 2009.
!