Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E8400 vs. Q6600 vs. Q9450

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 4, 2008 4:46:25 PM

Hi there. First-time builder here, and I've been doing a lot of research on processors, but I'd like a few second opinions. I've basically narrowed my selection down to these three: the E8400, the Q6600, and the Q9450. I'll definitely be doing some gaming with this build, but I'll also be using it for other purposes most of the time. (School work, internet browsing, audio/video encoding/decoding) Price isn't really much of an issue for me, as I can just work another few weeks to save up extra money for a part if I really want it. Which processor should I get if I'm going to be doing a little bit of everything with my PC?

Edit: I should mention that I'm looking at the EVGA 780i motherboard for my build as well. I'm not sure if its FSB can handle the speeds that would be needed to take a Q9450 to 4.0 GHz+, but I'm nearly positive that I could get 4.0 GHz+ out of an E8400, or ~3.6 GHz with a Q6600.

More about : e8400 q6600 q9450

a c 123 à CPUs
April 4, 2008 5:10:14 PM

So....many threads..... like this.... must resist telling to use search function...

Gaming will be best on the E8400. Anything else will be better on the Q6600/Q9450 such as video/audio encoding.

Out of the quads the Q9450 clock per clock should be faster in most areas with the higher cache giving it a slight boost. But the Q6600 might be able to OC higher than the Q9450 due to a higher multiplier.

To tell you the truth I have a Q6600 and am very happy with it. Yea with the E8400 you can OC to 4GHz easily and boost your gaming a little. But the Q6600 can hit 3-3.2GHz without a voltage bump and then hit 3.6GHz with a bit of an increase and good HSF.

Plus you have 4 cores for future apps and games that will use them.

In the end its your choice but wither quad will give you a nice rig for the next 2-3 years. A E8400 will last a bit but we can't say how long.
April 4, 2008 6:33:31 PM

Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ... You would need some luck and/or water cooling.
Q9450 @ 4.0GHz ... Unlikely currently due to the FSB wall at around 475MHz
E8400 @ 4.0GHz ... Cheap and very doable on air cooling.

For current gaming dual core is still the best choice. I didn't think twice and got a Q6600 5 months ago. I'd still pick Q6600 over the Q9450 today as a Q9450 costs around 1.5x the price of a Q6600.
Related resources
April 4, 2008 7:05:48 PM

Go with the q6600. Out of all of them, it's the cheapest and you still get that quad core feeling.
April 4, 2008 7:15:07 PM

mikekazik1 said:
Go with the q6600. Out of all of them, it's the cheapest and you still get that quad core feeling.

like in a week or so the e8400 will be the cheapest with a noticeable margin.....
April 4, 2008 7:25:36 PM

:hello: 

Ahem...perhaps we all missed the benchmarks where even the Q9300 noses ahead of the Q6600? So what exaclty will the Q9450 with even more cache do? [:mousemonkey:2] If price isn't an issue then stay away from old technology like a stanky old cheese sandwich. BUT...if you want to put the money saved from buying a Q6600 for under $200 into something else like a better GPU then you will be well off. It all comes down to a money balance see? Hands down get a quad though if you multi-task.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
April 4, 2008 7:52:23 PM

Isn't there another Itel price break coming soon. Maybe wait a week or two and save a few bucks.

April 4, 2008 7:58:03 PM

SpinachEater said:
:hello: 

Ahem...perhaps we all missed the benchmarks where even the Q9300 noses ahead of the Q6600? So what exaclty will the Q9450 with even more cache do? [:mousemonkey:2] If price isn't an issue then stay away from old technology like a stanky old cheese sandwich. BUT...if you want to put the money saved from buying a Q6600 for under $200 into something else like a better GPU then you will be well off. It all comes down to a money balance see? Hands down get a quad though if you multi-task.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...

A Q9300 beats a Q6600 by what margin ? 5-10% and it costs 30% more where I live. 280 vs 220 EUR.
And for 20% more you can get a Q9450 which would be my second choice. A Q9300 is not anywhere on my list.
It overclocks better than Q6600, but you need better RAM to get it anywhere above 3.0GHz.
As I said ... I'd still get a Q6600 today but that's just me.
April 4, 2008 8:13:40 PM

Price/performance winner is the Q6600.
Overall performance is the Q9450.
Overclocking the Q6600 GO is 3.4 -3.6ghz on a good air cooler and 3.8 -4.0 on good water cooling; the Q9450 is just about guaranteed to get 3.6ghz on stock voltages but it is just about guaranteed not to go higher according to peeps that have been testing them (yes, a very few have gotten to 4ghz but those are turning out to be the exception.) The performance of the Q9450 at 3.6ghz is better (8+%) then a similiarly clocked Q6600 but at a premium. If you want a quad that is guaranteed to get 4ghz then get a QX model.
April 4, 2008 8:41:02 PM

Price performance depends on your use. You might be better off spending all your money on a nice 30" high res LCD for all I know. It depends on your gaming and type of video editing. Seriously, I'd MUCH rather have a huge display than a slightly faster processor. Just my $.02
I'll buy a quad core when the software I use can really use a quad core. As I speak I do everything with my e6300 overclocked and even video recompression/encoding. When a quad saves me minutes, that's fine and dandy but the processes take so long I just let them run overnight anyways... no need for me... yet.
So if I were buying I'd still get a dual core that overclocks well and the lowest multiplier c2d architecture seems to be the sweet spot. They all have thermal limits, not FSB limits unless you buy a really old motherboard.
April 4, 2008 9:42:45 PM

I'd say the Q9450... always better to get the newer technology... and 65nm is just about dead now...

The only problem is actually getting your hands on one of them... I live in Toronto and I still can't find any Q9450 or Q9550 CPUs :( 

If time isn't an issue though, they will be drastically cheaper by the end of the month, and Intel promises that there will be more availability...
April 5, 2008 12:58:35 AM

I apologize for not using the search function first before creating this topic. I should have thought of that.

But after reading through all of these... I think I will just stick with the Q6600. I'm fairly confident that it won't bottleneck two 8800GTS in SLI, and it'll be leaps and bounds ahead of my Pentium 4 (2.8 GHz) I'm using now, so I think I'll go quad-core, but not for the new quad-cores. That money could definitely be spent on something much nicer, such as a large display as someone previously stated. Thanks for the advice.
April 5, 2008 2:03:39 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Gaming will be best on the E8400. Anything else will be better on the Q6600/Q9450 such as video/audio encoding.
Actually the e8400 beats the Q6600 on almost every test involving video and audio encoding/decoding. Programs just aren't ready yet for quad core computing... and softwares are not even fully taking advantage of dual cores until recently.

Dual core will be plenty for the next 1-2 years. A quad core will probably be better suited for years and years down the road. E8400 = Shorter Term. Q6600 = Longer Term. Your choice. Quad cores are too expensive for me right now. I'm going to just get an E8400... they should be down to their retail (~$185) by late April or May.
April 5, 2008 4:21:40 AM

doomsdaydave11 said:
Actually the e8400 beats the Q6600 on almost every test involving video and audio encoding/decoding.


Show me that when they have the same clocks and I will believe you. With such a bold statement you need a link to back that up.
April 5, 2008 5:15:13 AM

The E6750 is higher clocked (2.66) than the Q6600 (2.44) though so it isn't a fair judgment regarding which one is faster. The QX6700 has the same clock as the E6750 and it outperforms the E6750. That is a more level comparison than two cores with different clocks.

So what I am trying to get at is that the E8400 is clocked at 3GHz for stock settings. If you compare that to a Q6600 at 2.44GHz it will obviously look like it outperforms. If you were to raise the Q6600 to 3GHz, you would see a different story IF a quad core can be utilized in such a case.
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2008 11:44:22 AM

So....many threads..... like this.... must resist telling to use search function... LOL ... funny JS.

Q6600 I'd say is a good deal because of the price and OC potential.

Are the 45nm quads like the Q9450 shipping yet in any volume over there yet??

12Mb of cache there ... plus they would run cooler at speed and chew less power on a moderate OC.



April 5, 2008 11:58:55 AM

I posted this link in another thread :
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm
Then Intel confirmed there were only 410 million transistors in the Q9450 but I guess with a higher clock they get similar results. Being robbed in broad daylight sucks.
April 5, 2008 12:10:15 PM

For someone that's going to be doing a lot of video encoding (me), the performance test that matters is this one http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

It shows a clear advantage with the Q6600. Software like Premiere is already coded to perform even better with the newer instruction set of the Q9450.

I think you have to decide what's most important. If it's video encoding then the quad core is the way to go. Instead of something taking 4 hours it might take 2.5 or even less with the Q9450.

If it's gaming that's most important you might want the E8400.

How much of a difference will you see when running games on the E8400 vs a quad?

You'll see a large difference when encoding videos.

What's most important to you?
April 8, 2008 3:36:10 AM

Q6600, is u have more cash and good luck, than a Q9450 :lol: 
!