Help Me Choose a Quad Core

Depends on the motherboard you're buying in terms of being supported, and since you didn't tell us what one you're thinking of then we can't say for sure one way or another.

The G0 Q6600 is a sweet overclocker, 3 GHz easily (even the old B3 one can hit that), so stock clock speed shouldn't sway you. It's also pretty cheap at the moment. In terms of cache size I can't really say for sure one way or another but if you do a lot of tasks that will really take advantage of the 2 extra cores then the Q6600 should be the way to go.

And being 65nm architecture only means that it has a smaller cache (usually anyway), uses a little more power, and is slightly hotter.

Up to yourself, really

Ummm... The E5405 is a socket 771. Not sure if you looked around at 771 socket MB prices for that chip, not to mention the ones I've seen are 2 sockets, and I'm not sure if both need to have a CPU in each.

The Youngest of Yorkfields: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor Review

That should shed some light.

Yes first tell us if you want to overclock to the limits, moderately, or not at all. At the same clock settings, the review above tells it all but you could potentially get the Q6600 running higher than the Q9300 with good cooling.

Q6600 and Q6700 are supposed to undergo a huge price drop this month to make them comparable to their 45nm counterparts. Pretty much just to give people like you a hard time to decide on which one to get!

I'm thinking then the Q6600. I don't have too much experience overclocking, but I might what to try since the C2's are good OCers. I can get a Q6600 for $200 now, retail box, or do you think I'll be able to find it cheaper after the price drop?

If you want a quad core processor the only company that has them right now is AMD. All Intel has out now are Multi Chip Modules. (MCM)
The Q6600 is a MCM.

Some people up here need to stop pretending Intel's MCM's are quad core processors. They are not quad core.

I advise you to do some research first and learn the difference between an MCM and a Native Quad Core chip.

You'll be glad you did!

e

You mean the fact that Intel's "I can haz double-cheeseburger" approach is about 10% faster than AMD's "phenominal" native approach?

Been there, done that.

You're about 2 years late to the party  

Here are some things you need to consider first.

1. Are you going to go with a fresh built? Or use existing system components?

2. Are you interested in overclocking, and by how far?

3. What are you going to use the quad core processors for.

If you're using an existing motherboard (that support Conroe), then you can only go with Q6600. The newer 45nm quads require newer VRM module on the motherboard. Therefore, unless you're building a fresh new computer, stick with Q6600.

As for overclocking, unless you're interested in pushing your processor by over 20%, purchasing a 45nm Q9300 may be a better choice. It runs cooler, and uses less energy, while outperforms Q6600 at stock.

The reason I bring up your goal of using the quad core is, the new 45nm quads features SSE4 instruction sets. Therefore if you're into video editing, or video conversion, SSE4 can reduce process time by half.

Hope these help.

If there is four cores in one cpu package its a quad core. They could stack them on top of each other and put a pickle in between cores for all i care. Still a quad core.

And there are boards P965 boards that where made for core2s that do run the 45nm parts. Not officially by intels standards, but do have bios's for those cpus.

Doesn't matter it's native quad core or MCM, when MCM delivers more performance than it ,I think that matters the most for the end user.

Get a Q9450 ($350-$400) if you can find one,if you can't it's worth waiting. People are reporting 3.6 Ghz OC's on air cooling! The Q9300 is not much faster than a Q6600 because it only has 6mb of cache Vs. 12mb (Q9450).

hmm, i would wait for the q6600 price drop.

i think most mobo's now support the q6600 right out of the box since its been out for awhile now but look into the bios version of the mobo ur interested in to make sure it does (on their website). i just built my friends computer with a q6600 and the mobo detected it and booted up right away.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127030 that was the one i used for his comp. i think that board is a solid one to use for the q6600. you can do a moderate OC to 1333mhz FSB and hit 3.0ghz with that mobo too as it supports 1333mhz fsb.

personally i would get a q6600 out of the choices u posted. its going to be a lot cheaper once the 45nm's really start rolling. if you can't really wait, 250$ for it right now on newegg is not really a bad choice either. honestly, at stock 2.4, its blazing fast, i've been around the q6600 for awhile now, and i can't really hinder it with the programs i used (aim and email) jk x) . i say it would be a solid cpu for at least another 2-3 years or so. best bang for the buck imo.

Intel's quad core is two dual cores fused together, not a singular quad core. The dude's point up there was that AMD is a true quad core where Intel is not but I am not sure what that had to do with anything.

I was going to say just about the same thing that you were saying though...even if it is a pickle sandwich core, in the end it is better than AMD's solution.

Go with a Q6600 go stepping.. I have it overclocked to 3.2 ghz on air cooling rock solid. It's the best bang for the buck around. I am only using A Zalman copper cooler to.

I paid $335 for a Q9450 last week through distribution. Its out there.