10% faster clock for clock. 10% faster clock at stock.
The few reviews show the Q9450 hits the FSB wall before it hits it's thermal limit. Around 3.8GHz is all you can hope for. At that speed you'd need a Q6600 at about 4.2GHz to keep up (good luck with that).
It's faster and cooler at stock and costs around 50% more for about 15-25% more performance in ideal conditions.
Message edited by Andrius on 04-07-2008 at 09:25:53 PM
Price point is a little high right now but not a bad proc. If I were waiting (not only for stock at retailers) for price drops, I'd prolly spend a few extra on the 9550. Budget depending of course.
$299 is a very good price for the Q9450 and would not expect price drops.
The 1000 Tray price for the 9300 is $266.
I don't ave the 9450 memorized, but I think it's $316.
As a result I would not expect a price drop until Intel announces a price drop. With a Price drop coming April 20th that does not include those processors, it will be quite a while.
Especially w/ Intel not having announced newer HighEnd Quads to push the existing ones down the line.
---------------
If its good in theory but not in practice,
its not good theory.
I just picked one up at Microcenter for $299, really want to get that heat reduction from the die shrink.
Most reviews show around 10% better benches, clock for clock, but reduced heat.
I am curious for OC, due to its 8 multiplier and the 6600's 9 multi.
The low multiplier is a sticking point when it comes to overclocking. You have to use a very high FSB to get equal overclocks, and many, if not most, motherboards won't allow such a high FSB. This is why some people, myself included, wanted a Q9550 instead, or better yet, a Q9650. But Intel isn't releasing the Q9650 until 3Q or 4Q and that's so close to the release to Nehalem that most people would probably hold off to buy a Nehalem instead. The Q9550 has been very rare so far, as Intel has not been quick with the releases, which is why I got impatient and bought a QX9650.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
I'm running an old AMD right now....didn't snag the Q6600 for a long time because thought Penryn would be more impressive...oh well, its basically a 45nm revision...Hope Nehalem isn't too much faster, if I decide to get a Q9450!
So what do you think, a Q6700 for $260, or a Q9450 for $300?
Heh.. I just went ahead and brought a Q6600. I should be getting it tomorrow.
Which means for me, I got allot of system switching ta do, as well as save up for another MB for my E4400 to be my new linux machine. Which also means I'll have 6 cores at my disposal... Bwahahahhahhhhahhhaaaaaaaa... *cough*O o . .
Owell.. dat's how my geek life goes. I would have waited perhaps for the Q9550 but seems my MB will not take yorkies anymo. . o O (they kept saying yes.. maybe.. testing... yes... testing again... whelp... NO, no yorkie for you.)
Message edited by Grimmy on 04-08-2008 at 07:22:16 PM
I would choose a Q6700 at $260. Of course, that price is after the reductions which are set for later this month. Its cheaper, overclocks better, and with good cooling, heat should be no problem. Also, the last I looked the Q9450 was priced at $379.99, It was the 9300 that was selling for just under $300.
I hear you Grimmy. It seems the older motherboards that are really capable of using a Yorkie are not as many as first thought, a bit like how many AM2 motherboards will really take a Phenom. That's why I bought a X48 when doing my build.
Message edited by Sailer on 04-08-2008 at 07:29:27 PM
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
Heh.. I was trying to save in the process when I was building.
The P6N Platium I got, I only paid 80 bucks for it (retail $150 at the time). Come to think of it, I did save more money on my system, then my Dad's build (comparing MB/RAM/CPU).
Still bummed out on my 8800GTS, and seeing now my $300+ power hungry card gos for $144 bucks.
Message edited by Grimmy on 04-08-2008 at 07:34:15 PM
[quotemsg=1808847,14,67600]I would choose a Q6700 at $260. Of course, that price is after the reductions which are set for later this month. Its cheaper, overclocks better, and with good cooling, heat should be no problem. Also, the last I looked the Q9450 was priced at $379.99, It was the 9300 that was selling for just under $300./quotemsg]
No, the Q6600 OCs about the same at sub $200 and the Q9450 is down to $300 at some places.
[quotemsg=1808847,14,67600]I would choose a Q6700 at $260. Of course, that price is after the reductions which are set for later this month. Its cheaper, overclocks better, and with good cooling, heat should be no problem. Also, the last I looked the Q9450 was priced at $379.99, It was the 9300 that was selling for just under $300./quotemsg]
No, the Q6600 OCs about the same at sub $200 and the Q9450 is down to $300 at some places.
Ok, I hadn't seen any prices for the Q9450 that cheap, but if some place have it at that price, then its a good buy. The overclocking I was referring to was a comparison of the Q6700 with the Q9450 and their different multipliers. The Q9450 should have an advantage when it comes to heat, but good heatsinks cancel much of that advantage. You are correct that a Q6600 overclocks well, just needing a slightly higher FSB than the Q6700.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
.
. o O (they kept saying yes.. maybe.. testing... yes... testing again... whelp... NO, no yorkie for you.)
