Q9300 Vs Q9450 NON OC p.o.v

Hi im sorry if this has been asked before, but i tried looking and couldnt find a real explanation, im building a new pc ( http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] -ever-help help appreciated if you have the time give it a look )

and i have a quick, short, question about this 2 (Q9300, Q9450)

ive read a lot and know the Q9450 would be a far better choice, with the higher multiplier being easier to oc and achieving higher clock levels, but for somoene NOT planning to overclock, what would be a better choice (taking in consideration the price difference)

Core 2 Quad Q9450/2.66Ghz/12MBL2/FSB1333 $319
Core 2 Quad Q9300/2.50Ghz/6MBL2/FSB1333 $270

(these are rough estimates, the prices will actually be much higher but i bet the price difference will remain at $50ish)

is the extra 160mhz clock speed and 6mb of cache (double...) worth the $50 difference?, from a non overclocking point of view wich of these 2 would be a better buy? would there be a serious performance difference?

For 50 bucks the upgrade is pretty much worth it and you could still easily do a small oc on stock cooler. now seriuosly if you have a good mobo ocing is really easy these days

Thanks so much for the helpful replies, if the Q9450 would only give me a ~10% improvement i dont think its worth $50 extra.

i was under the impression it would be a much bigger improvement mainly because of the extra L2 cache, 6mb extra for a total of 12 sounded like a lot, and i do remember reading cache helps in gaming and other areas, so i asumed Q9450 having twice as much would translate to a much better performance.

ill check for deals on the GTS, anyone knows a reliable low priced site that offers pre-test of hardware outside directron?

i would go with the q9450 better processor overall for not that much more in price.

The Q6700 is dropping to Q6600 prices on April 20th too, with the Q6600 dropping further than it already is.