Ooo, I want one, but I decided to just get the Q6600 instead because I believe Ill get higher overclocking results because I only have 800mhz RAM and a mid-range board, and the Q9300 has a lower multiplyer so to OC itll put high strain on my RAM and Mobo.
Ooo, I want one, but I decided to just get the Q6600 instead because I believe Ill get higher overclocking results because I only have 800mhz RAM and a mid-range board, and the Q9300 has a lower multiplyer so to OC itll put high strain on my RAM and Mobo.
This is very True Very True,, I will not touch this one.. I might do might do the 9450. I will wait and see what it looks like first and that price is ugly IMO for that cheap one. They have the q6600s on sale for $199 at microcenter but, only when you walk in and get one.
---------------
Silverstone Decatholon 750w Modular, Antec 900 Case, GA-EX38-DQ6, Q9300 @ 460 X 7.5 = 3.45Ghz "Burn In" 1.36v, 2Gbx2 G-Skill DDR2 1066 @ 1100Mhz 2.1v, eVGA 8800GTS 512, 2x Western Digital 160Gb 8Mb Cache Raid0, Philips 20x SATA Burner, Thermalright all th
Wow its March Madness into April Madness, good thing I waited to build on this old pentium 4 Im using. I can choose between a phenom, 45nm quadcore, and possibly a Tricore. Woohoo!!!
I'm thinking that with the higher FSB on the quad and with intel and nvidia releasing new chipsets soon with this added support for 1600mhz FSB I think that pushing a board with proper cooling beyond 2000mhz will be something much easier to do than before. So that should give for a nice 3.75ghz for that Q9300.
I'm thinking that with the higher FSB on the quad and with intel and nvidia releasing new chipsets soon with this added support for 1600mhz FSB I think that pushing a board with proper cooling beyond 2000mhz will be something much easier to do than before. So that should give for a nice 3.75ghz for that Q9300.
That will remain to be seen but right now with the new architecture it is good enough at 3.5ghz to match a Q6600 at 3.6ghz but to really be cost effective vs. the Q6600 it needs to drop in price.
That will remain to be seen but right now with the new architecture it is good enough at 3.5ghz to match a Q6600 at 3.6ghz but to really be cost effective vs. the Q6600 it needs to drop in price.
And it runs cooler. But yea I would wait for a price drop. I might pick up a Q9450 a bit later(when around $200) just for kicks and a cooler running CPU. But for now my Q6600 @ 3GHz is more than awesome enough.
Q6600 has more cache too. Still, the Q9300 looks like a nice little processor, but I haven't read any reviews yet.
Here's the first review I've come across. Looks like the Q9300 is on average 7% faster than the Q6600 despite having less cache which I don't think it too bad considering it's price point (well, the MSRP at least). I would think getting one of these running at 3Ghz (max for DDR2-800 memory) would last most people at least until 2nd gen Nehalem or even (gasp) AMD's 45nm
Message edited by Jevon on 03-14-2008 at 05:29:38 PM
That will remain to be seen but right now with the new architecture it is good enough at 3.5ghz to match a Q6600 at 3.6ghz but to really be cost effective vs. the Q6600 it needs to drop in price.
I agree... I probably wouldn't buy one in this case too.
Well... Quad's arent junk! They just aren't as fast as duals in non-multi threaded apps like games. But as soon as those games start coming out that are multi threaded quads will leave duals in the dust.
I bought a dual personally because of this and because of the price difference. I give it about 10-15 months before quads will be destroying duals in every app that comes out.
Right now though for the price the Q6600 is unbeatable for value. What a deal when it comes to procs!
I want to see the Q9450 come out for under 300 and I would consider that a value buy. Until then I think the Q6600 or the E8400 (only for under 200 like intel intended) are the best buy for procs.
Well... Quad's arent junk! They just aren't as fast as duals in non-multi threaded apps like games. But as soon as those games start coming out that are multi threaded quads will leave duals in the dust.
I bought a dual personally because of this and because of the price difference. I give it about 10-15 months before quads will be destroying duals in every app that comes out.
Right now though for the price the Q6600 is unbeatable for value. What a deal when it comes to procs!
I want to see the Q9450 come out for under 300 and I would consider that a value buy. Until then I think the Q6600 or the E8400 (only for under 200 like intel intended) are the best buy for procs.
Quads are junk FTW!!
I was so kidding when I agreed with him ,,
---------------
Silverstone Decatholon 750w Modular, Antec 900 Case, GA-EX38-DQ6, Q9300 @ 460 X 7.5 = 3.45Ghz "Burn In" 1.36v, 2Gbx2 G-Skill DDR2 1066 @ 1100Mhz 2.1v, eVGA 8800GTS 512, 2x Western Digital 160Gb 8Mb Cache Raid0, Philips 20x SATA Burner, Thermalright all th
Duals are junk too. If they can get Cedar Mill P4s to the 8Ghz range, who needs threading at all!
/sarcasm off
Single-threaded apps FTW. (and single-track minded people too)
Quad own, and those that think they don't because of 2fps in [insert game] are a joke.
That's the attitude I'm talking bout . I have a pimped out PC isn't that all that matters. I don't care about your two Frames Per Second. Hell, with the way I have my rig setup,, I might get two Frames over your Dual who knows.
---------------
Silverstone Decatholon 750w Modular, Antec 900 Case, GA-EX38-DQ6, Q9300 @ 460 X 7.5 = 3.45Ghz "Burn In" 1.36v, 2Gbx2 G-Skill DDR2 1066 @ 1100Mhz 2.1v, eVGA 8800GTS 512, 2x Western Digital 160Gb 8Mb Cache Raid0, Philips 20x SATA Burner, Thermalright all th
