Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q9300s for sale

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2008 12:04:12 AM

For those of you interested in a half cache Yorkfield: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/ite...

More about : q9300s sale

March 14, 2008 12:16:15 AM

the q9450 is almost here.
March 14, 2008 12:32:15 AM

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.
Related resources
March 14, 2008 12:52:25 AM

Xpyrofuryx said:
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.
March 14, 2008 1:19:08 AM

Q6600 has more cache too. Still, the Q9300 looks like a nice little processor, but I haven't read any reviews yet.
March 14, 2008 4:25:40 AM

q9300 may turn out to be the q6600 killer on high fsb mobos


oem q6600 at newegg are $240 - check out combo specials on power supplies, sometimes free games or amd tee shirts (seriously)
March 14, 2008 7:25:11 AM

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!!!
March 14, 2008 9:05:13 AM

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.
March 14, 2008 12:42:58 PM

hughyhunter said:
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.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 14, 2008 2:53:24 PM

Craxbax said:
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.
March 14, 2008 3:28:55 PM

homerdog said:
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 :) 
March 14, 2008 4:12:47 PM

And it still gets outperformed by higher clocked dual core processors in most games.
March 14, 2008 5:45:20 PM

Craxbax said:
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.
March 14, 2008 5:49:09 PM

homerdog said:
And it still gets outperformed by higher clocked dual core processors in most games.



You are so right Homerdog Quads are junk man, I'm with you all the way.
March 14, 2008 6:42:11 PM

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.
March 14, 2008 7:04:03 PM

hughyhunter said:
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!! :p 

I was so kidding when I agreed with him :p ,,
March 14, 2008 8:06:46 PM

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.
March 14, 2008 9:29:57 PM

KyleSTL said:
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 :p  . 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.
March 15, 2008 1:56:20 AM

Quads certainly aren't "junk," they just aren't ideal for gaming right now.
March 15, 2008 1:40:38 PM

Oh homerdog,, what will we do with you lol.
March 15, 2008 4:42:49 PM

We need to assess the seriousness of this situation! :( 

I wish I could have bought a Quad. The Q6600 was a tad bit out of my budget (the E8400 was even too expensive for my budget) and I just couldn't get myself to by an older tech product especially when the new duals had tons of cache and were 45nm.

Well my next rig will probably be a Quad... Maybe they'll have more cores in a proc by then! :sarcastic: 
March 15, 2008 5:11:05 PM

How will a quad benefit me now?

How will a quad benefit me later?

These are the questions that I asked myself before I purchased my E6750.
March 15, 2008 7:29:28 PM

homerdog said:
How will a quad benefit me later?

I nominate this to be the "Stupid Question of the Day"

Captain Obvious says: multi-threaded apps, kids, now stay in school. [a la G.I. Joe]
March 15, 2008 7:58:00 PM

No, you've got it all wrong. It won't help me in multi-threaded apps if I don't run any multi-threaded apps.

By the way, how does Cevat's Kool-Aid taste? *Edit*: I apologize, that was irrelevant and uncalled for :) 

I feel that I must elaborate.

Multi-core CPU scaling (and perhaps CPU scaling general) in games is hard to achieve. Developers must ensure that end users get the same basic experience on a slow processor as they do on a fast one. Nobody is going to release a game that requires a quad core CPU to achieve playability in the immediate future.

This is similar to the situation that Ageia faced with the PPU, which ultimately led to the PPU's demise.

High end GPUs on the other hand can be utilized without fear of ruining the experience for users with lesser machines. Image quality settings can be raised to take advantage of those powerful GPUs while lesser hardware can still run the game on low settings.

My prediction is that by the time we see real gaming advantages with quad core CPUs, Nehalem will be out and nobody is going to care about Core 2.

By the way KyleSTL, it's nice to see a fellow XClio user. Very underrated PSUs if you ask me.
March 15, 2008 8:54:31 PM

Article posted on: 12:00 AM on November 13, 2006

PS -

Work has already begun on more complex particle systems, realistic physics, and smarter AI, and Valve may even release a short level—similar to Lost Coast—to showcase how the Source engine can exploit quad-core processors. That release may be the first glimpse we get of how multi-core processors can fundamentally change gaming. For years, we've enjoyed how the rapid pace of graphics hardware development has enabled ever more compelling visuals. Yet while developers have been able to create games that look real, their behavior has been anything but. Multi-core processors may finally give artificial intelligence, physics, and other game elements a chance to catch up.

PS #2: "We recommend quad core over higher clock" -Cevat Yerli
March 15, 2008 9:02:37 PM

Oh, and since I've used both a Q6600 and a QX9650, along with a huge array of both AMD and Intel dual cores, I can heartily say that the quad cores are the best option.

Also, I'm sure that the second Nehalem comes out, game devs are going to start supporting it, because, you know, everybody's going to have one and nobody would possibly have a Core2 of any kind, like those who have been buying them for the past two years. Your argument doesn't make sense.
March 15, 2008 9:13:52 PM

What's nice is I can set Nero to Encode a AVI to DVD, set it to use 2 cores, and Encode at the same speed as your Dual Core while playing a game at the same speed as your Dual Core.

You have to wait the 25-45 minutes for the encode before you can start playing.

The other great thing about Quad? When I am not gaming I have TONS of applications open and not a single thing misses a beat.... As far as performance you don't lose anything, you can only gain.

I would honestly build a dual Quad Core PC if the Skulltrail stuff didn't appear to suck so bad. I can't wait until they come out with an 8 Core at 4Ghz + per core beast.

Now if only some decent video cards would friggin' come out already....
March 15, 2008 9:15:58 PM

resonance451 said:
Oh, and since I've used both a Q6600 and a QX9650, along with a huge array of both AMD and Intel dual cores, I can heartily say that the quad cores are the best option.

Also, I'm sure that the second Nehalem comes out, game devs are going to start supporting it, because, you know, everybody's going to have one and nobody would possibly have a Core2 of any kind, like those who have been buying them for the past two years. Your argument doesn't make sense.

I don't recall ever saying that devs would drop Core2 the second Nehalem is released. Rather, I believe that by the time devs start focusing on quad core support, most of us with have Nehalem based processors.

And by the way, Crysis is entirely GPU limited at high settings.
March 15, 2008 9:19:07 PM

homerdog said:


And by the way, Crysis is entirely GPU limited at high settings.


Agreed 100%....we need more video power!
March 15, 2008 9:22:22 PM

homerdog said:
No, you've got it all wrong. It won't help me in multi-threaded apps if I don't run any multi-threaded apps.

By the way, how does Cevat's Kool-Aid taste? *Edit*: I apologize, that was irrelevant and uncalled for :) 

I feel that I must elaborate.

Multi-core CPU scaling (and perhaps CPU scaling general) in games is hard to achieve. Developers must ensure that end users get the same basic experience on a slow processor as they do on a fast one. Nobody is going to release a game that requires a quad core CPU to achieve playability in the immediate future.

This is similar to the situation that Ageia faced with the PPU, which ultimately led to the PPU's demise.

High end GPUs on the other hand can be utilized without fear of ruining the experience for users with lesser machines. Image quality settings can be raised to take advantage of those powerful GPUs while lesser hardware can still run the game on low settings.

My prediction is that by the time we see real gaming advantages with quad core CPUs, Nehalem will be out and nobody is going to care about Core 2.

By the way KyleSTL, it's nice to see a fellow XClio user. Very underrated PSUs if you ask me.


Heh.. I think KyleSTL was more looking at the "How will a quad benefit me later?" part. You just answered your own question, which I bolded out.

Even though there are tons of single threaded apps, you still have the option to set the affinity to best suit performance needs as well, though it can be somewhat complicated to implement easy, like anti-virus programs that actually have more then just software that detects/scans files, like other features to protect browsers and such.

If you buys something that you don't know its potential, chances are, your not going to even use a dual core to its fullest.
March 15, 2008 9:38:47 PM

Grimmy said:
Heh.. I think KyleSTL was more looking at the "How will a quad benefit me later?" part. You just answered your own question, which I bolded out.

Well that last bit about Nehalem was more of an aside. The main point of my post that I failed to mention was that multi-core support in gaming is poor, and it will probably still take a while for the software to catch up with the hardware.

I agree though that for heavy multitasking quad cores are good.
March 15, 2008 9:47:24 PM

homerdog said:
How will a quad benefit me now?

A quad wouldn't really make much sense for me now. Games are literally the only CPU intensive applications that I run, and they don't scale well with quad core CPUs.
homerdog said:
How will a quad benefit me later?

A quad wouldn't really make much sense for me in the life of my motherboard. Games are literally the only CPU intensive applications that I run, and current trends indicate that my money would be better spent on a faster GPU than a quad core CPU.
March 15, 2008 10:07:42 PM

OK, let's review what we've learned here:

• Game will start to become multithreaded soon
• Many non-games are already multithreaded (especially in the encoding/content creation arena
• Quad are not much slower in terms of clocks compared to their dual counterparts right now (overclocking closes the gap even further)

And most importantly...
• The vast majority of games are GPU limited at resolutions most players want to play

So, why again would it be a huge disadvantage to buy a quad right now? (Edit: aside from funds allocation)

On a side note, I do love my GreatPower, when it comes to low-priced modular PSUs, you really can't do much better than the XClio GreatPower series (except occasionally when you can find a really good deal on an Antec NeoHE). The only disadvantage to the XClios is the lack of 12V combined rail ratings, but I can overlook that since it has a decent overall power rail, high Tier, and is Channel Well made.
March 15, 2008 11:16:38 PM

KyleSTL said:
OK, let's review what we've learned here:

-Game will start to become multithreaded soon

If by soon you mean some time next year then I agree. Just remember, the lowest common denominator factor will still limit what developers are allowed to do with >2 core scaling until >2 core processors are a common sight. Even Valve, which has great multi-core support in Source, has to hold back for fear of alienating the dual core majority.
KyleSTL said:
-Many non-games are already multithreaded (especially in the encoding/content creation arena

-Quad are not much slower in terms of clocks compared to their dual counterparts right now (overclocking closes the gap even further)

And most importantly...
-The vast majority of games are GPU limited at resolutions most players want to play

Yes, yes, and absolutely yes

KyleSTL said:
So, why again would it be a huge disadvantage to buy a quad right now? (Edit: aside from funds allocation)

It's not really that a quad will disadvantage you, it's just that for gaming your money would be better spent on a faster GPU.
KyleSTL said:
On a side note, I do love my GreatPower, when it comes to low-priced modular PSUs, you really can't do much better than the XClio GreatPower series (except occasionally when you can find a really good deal on an Antec NeoHE). The only disadvantage to the XClios is the lack of 12V combined rail ratings, but I can overlook that since it has a decent overall power rail, high Tier, and is Channel Well made.

XClio FTW! :bounce: 
March 15, 2008 11:37:37 PM

homerdog said:
It's not really that a quad will disadvantage you, it's just that for gaming your money would be better spent on a faster GPU.

Agreed
March 16, 2008 2:15:28 AM

homerdog said:
No, you've got it all wrong. It won't help me in multi-threaded apps if I don't run any multi-threaded apps.
High end GPUs on the other hand can be utilized without fear of ruining the experience for users with lesser machines. Image quality settings can be raised to take advantage of those powerful GPUs while lesser hardware can still run the game on low settings.
My prediction is that by the time we see real gaming advantages with quad core CPUs, Nehalem will be out and nobody is going to care about Core 2.
By the way KyleSTL, it's nice to see a fellow XClio user. Very underrated PSUs if you ask me.

I agree... why would developers only develop software geared to the 5% of the world. Mind you the Gov is whom I work for and the larges purchaser of computers and we still are using single core procs.
resonance451 said:
Oh, and since I've used both a Q6600 and a QX9650, along with a huge array of both AMD and Intel dual cores, I can heartily say that the quad cores are the best option.
Also, I'm sure that the second Nehalem comes out, game devs are going to start supporting it, because, you know, everybody's going to have one and nobody would possibly have a Core2 of any kind, like those who have been buying them for the past two years. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Money must grow on trees for you. Yeah an extreme clocked at 4ghz is going to perform better than a single core or dual even on non-multi threaded apps.
incarnate said:
What's nice is I can set Nero to Encode a AVI to DVD, set it to use 2 cores, and Encode at the same speed as your Dual Core while playing a game at the same speed as your Dual Core.
You have to wait the 25-45 minutes for the encode before you can start playing.
The other great thing about Quad? When I am not gaming I have TONS of applications open and not a single thing misses a beat.... As far as performance you don't lose anything, you can only gain.
I would honestly build a dual Quad Core PC if the Skulltrail stuff didn't appear to suck so bad. I can't wait until they come out with an 8 Core at 4Ghz + per core beast.
Now if only some decent video cards would friggin' come out already....

What....? Not everyone wants to watch a movie, make a movie, eat popcorn, burn a DVD and stand on their head at the same time. Some just like to play games and listen to music. Last time I tried to do that it worked fine! And I have a dual core! But you go waist thousands on a 8 core skulltrail and i'll waist a few bucks and we can do the same thing.
March 16, 2008 3:34:39 AM

:lol:  Flame on :lol:  I started a riot in here. :p  I have been just playing with my new setup having fun watching this thread since I last posted eating popcorn :p  . Has any one oveclocked these things yet and benched them that's my next question.
March 16, 2008 6:15:47 PM

hughyhunter said:
Money must grow on trees for you. Yeah an extreme clocked at 4ghz is going to perform better than a single core or dual even on non-multi threaded apps.


I love how the moment I mention I have the fastest processor on the market, I'm a rich and wasteful slob. Because I couldn't have possibly f*cking earned it, right?

I'm not directly comparing the performance of an overclocked qx9650 to the performance of a P4 or something like that. I was merely listing the numerous models I have tried, and my heavy preference for the quad cores, particularly considering that the Q6600 costs about $250.
March 16, 2008 6:34:06 PM

All I'm saying is this. The extreme with all it's cores disabled but one will outperform an older P4 on any application. It's just a better proc because it's brand new... has more cache and all that other fun stuff. But it also costs a lot of dough. Trust me! If I could afford a extreme proc I would have bought one. Because I know it will blow the duals out of the water on even non-multi threaded apps. But the fact is I had a budget and most of the world does or should. I dont think that the older Q6600 could be that much better in today's multi-threaded apps as a E8400... especially after both of them get overclocked. The proof is in 3dmark06 for me. My system scores upper 18k at 4.2ghz. A similar system with a Q6600 @ 3.7 will score just a little less.

But as you quad enthusiasts are right... give it a year and multi-threaded apps will require more cores just like we've seen in the transition from single to dual cores. Nobody buys single cores anymore.... just like in a few years from now duals will be obsolete.

I pick on anyone that has extreme procs! :lol: 

Yeah... it's because I'm jealous and cant afford one!
March 16, 2008 6:53:12 PM

The whole point is that I'm not even talking about whether a QX processor is better than a Sempron, because that's a ridiculous comparison. Read my post, please.

PS -

newegg says:

E8400: $259.99
Q6600: $249.99

My bad, people have a budget. Much better to go with the cheaper dual core than the ultra-expensive quad.

One other thing: You do realize that synthetic benchmarks don't count for everything?
March 17, 2008 4:09:13 AM

Synthetic benchmarks arent really real world. I understand that. I have to admit... If the Q9450 was out at the same time that the E8400 was for sale and the E8400 was for around 229 (about what I bought it for) and the Q9450 was for under 300 (dont see this happening for awhile) I probably would have convinced the wife why we have to have the Quad and not the cheaper dual.
I just couldnt convince myself though to get an older 65nm tech Q6600 at the time when I got the E8400. It's old tech as far as the 65nm and there is just something about bragging to the ignorant that I have a proc that I overclocked to 4-4.5ghz. People go nuts!
You know!!! Someday when the kids are out of the house and I'm rich, fat, old an happy I'll get myself one of those skulltrail platforms(well.... whatever the equivalent there is in that far day).
March 17, 2008 7:53:54 AM

I'm in a huge predicament because of the CPU technology out right now!

I would like a quad core processor for the performance increases in Supreme Commander and the ability to leave a billion applications open with no problem. I'm running on an Athlon FX-53 (single-core)...and it donkies.

However, I also am forcing myself to go the 45nm route because that technology is just totally badass awesome.

So where does that leave me? The only three options are:

1.) spend 1000 USD on a CPU (QX9650)
2.) buy a E8400 and loose some Supreme Commander performance
3.) buy a crappier 45nm quad core which will cause other games/applications which don't utilize quad core CPU to suffer!

Sucks! What do you guys recommend?
March 17, 2008 8:12:35 AM

I'd opt for Option 3.

Grab a Q9450 (or Q9300 / Q6600 if you want a slightly cheaper option ) You'll get great gaming performance in Sup Com and still be able to leave a 'billion applications open'. ;) 
March 17, 2008 9:15:59 AM

ya the Q9300 and Q9450 are on a faster stock bus speed than the Q6600 which gives it a slight advantage at the same clock speed. Granted if your listening to music and browsing the web you won't utilize it but you might notice a slight gain in gaming, maybe. But it will be sweet to have the fastest non $1,000 quad core out there :) 
March 17, 2008 3:58:39 PM

Yea but then a lot of excellent current games, like Crysis and the other slew of excellent FPSes, will actually take a performance hit VS a 45nm Core 2 Duo! Not sure I can live with that LOL.
March 17, 2008 4:04:45 PM

Waspy said:
I'm in a huge predicament because of the CPU technology out right now!

I would like a quad core processor for the performance increases in Supreme Commander and the ability to leave a billion applications open with no problem. I'm running on an Athlon FX-53 (single-core)...and it donkies.

However, I also am forcing myself to go the 45nm route because that technology is just totally badass awesome.

So where does that leave me? The only three options are:

1.) spend 1000 USD on a CPU (QX9650)
2.) buy a E8400 and loose some Supreme Commander performance
3.) buy a crappier 45nm quad core which will cause other games/applications which don't utilize quad core CPU to suffer!

Sucks! What do you guys recommend?

You could try waiting it out until the 45nm quads are cheaper and more readily available, or go ahead and spring for a Q6600 right now. The Q6600 is a great processor, even with the Yorkfields breathing down its neck.
March 17, 2008 5:17:31 PM

Waspy said:
Yea but then a lot of excellent current games, like Crysis and the other slew of excellent FPSes, will actually take a performance hit VS a 45nm Core 2 Duo! Not sure I can live with that LOL.


True, and that is my main argument in the quad vs duals for gaming debate. ;) 

The E8400 isn't that bad at Sup Com anyway, its actually slightly faster than a stock Q6600.

Perhaps you should get a fast dual core now, and upgrade to a quad when more games start to take advantage of quads.
March 17, 2008 6:12:58 PM

I was faced with a similar dilemma. I opted for the super fast E8400 vs. the Q6600 (bought a month ago)... There is something cool about having a 4ghz dual core.
March 17, 2008 7:44:28 PM

Consider this against the "budget" argument brought up earlier:

Now:
E8400 (to save some money for a better GPU): $200 (for argument's sake - what it SHOULD cost, which is a very conservative for my argument's sake)
8800GT (since you saved money on the GPU): $220

Later:
Q9450 (because games will come out that support 4 cores): $335 (based on a $316/1000 cost)
9800GTX (or whatever is after it, since your GPU is no longer powerful enough to play the quad-supported games): $300 (WAG)

Total: $1055

Or -

Now (or very near future):
Q6600 (slightly slower in dual-threaded games, but more much potential with a good overclock, and less prone to near-future obsolesence): $260
or
Q9450 (in the near future, for obvious reasons): $335
9600GT (since it's only lagging a little behind the 8800GT with a good overclock): $170

Later:
No CPU upgrade needed
8800GTX: $300

Total: $730-805
On top of that, you only purchased 1 processor (BIG saving, and in the long run, going from A [now] to B [later] ends up at the same endpoint). With the total savings from the two purchases you might as well buy a 9800GX2 (or whatever). Buy two processors is not a wise financial decision.
!