Tom's Hardware Forums » CPU & Components » CPUs » Q9300 or Q6700? Which to get
 

Q9300 or Q6700? Which to get




Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : Q9300 or Q6700? Which to get
 
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

I am contemplating on upgrading to a quad core cpu. Besides gaming I use my computer for 3D modeling (pro/e and some autocad) and ANSYS (FEA) and can get an advantage from multiple cpu's. What I am trying to decide upon is whether to get the Q9300 or the Q6700. I want to OC to 3.0 to 3.2 GHz and am pretty sure both will get there. I have an x48 Asus board with crucial DDR2 ram so I am not really FSB limited. Since both are the same price and stock speed, does anyone know if the extra L2 cache is worth the added power consumption of the 65nm device?

Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

Get a 6600 and save yourself the coin. It will easily hit 3.0-3.2. 9300 just isnt worth the money.

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

I looked at that one first because of the price but it seemed that 3.2 was about as fast as most people got them to go and had to use voltages at or above 1.4V. At this level the processor might produce more heat than I would like as I enjoy having a very silent system. Although the 65nm die has been in production for awhile now and maybe that voltage has come down with the G0 stepping. Does anyone have experience overclocking a Q6600 to 3.2 GHz with a G0 device and if so what voltages are you using?

Profile: Ancient Poster
More Information

Agree. Zero point to the Q6700.
Only get the Q9300 is power/heat dissipation is important to you.


---------------
If its good in theory but not in practice,
its not good theory.
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

It looks as though the Q9300 will hit 3.2GHz at about 1.25V to 1.3V and a Q6700 will require 1.4V. I know my E8400 running at 3.95GHz 1.38V never really gets above 52c or 53c when fully loaded so I suspect the Q9300 would do the same down at 3.2GHz. I've herd of overclocked Q6700's getting up to 65c and beyond. Will probably go with the Q9300 as the extra L2 cache is probably not needed.

First 938 A64 X2 owner!
Profile: journeyman
More Information

The Q9300 is a newer version w/ less speed (2.66 vs 2.5) but the 9300 has 1333 FSB not 1066 FSB, and has the 6 MB L2 cache, and it is 45 nm so it's better :)

Profile: journeyman
More Information

illinikevin wrote :

It looks as though the Q9300 will hit 3.2GHz at about 1.25V to 1.3V and a Q6700 will require 1.4V. I know my E8400 running at 3.95GHz 1.38V never really gets above 52c or 53c when fully loaded so I suspect the Q9300 would do the same down at 3.2GHz. I've herd of overclocked Q6700's getting up to 65c and beyond. Will probably go with the Q9300 as the extra L2 cache is probably not needed.



The Q6600 has NO problem going above 3.2 with slightly tweaked voltages. I've had mine hit 3.8 but backed down because of the temps. Q6600 is the best bang for the buck at the moment, and unless you really feel you need a 45nm proc right now, go with the Q6600 not the Q6700. There are numerous guide on how to overclock the Q6600 stably, mine only needed to go to 1.325V.


---------------
Q6600 @ 3.4GHZ LAPPED - Arctic Freezer 7 Pro LAPPED- Evga 780i SLI - Coolermaster Stacker 832 case /w 9x 120mm case fans - 8GB OCZ DDR2 800MHZ SLI-Ready 5-4-4-12 - 2x WD Raptors 150GB in RAID 0 - 2x 8800GT in SLI - Vista Ultimate 64 - 3d Mark06 18632 on X
Grass is always greener on the
Profile: enthusiast
More Information

At the same price and same OC the Q9300 is 5-7% faster. So to answer your question. The Q9300 is the better choice. That said, if you want max OC the Q6700 is the way to go due to the FSB limits on the Q9300. In two of my Shuttle boxes the Q6600 clocks at stock vcore 9x333=3ghz. You might also look at the XEON Quad core's.

Profile: enthusiast
More Information

Q6600 3.2GHz 1.4V. I'm pretty happy with it. Didn't try to seriously overclock it. Can run a bunch of stuff with my 8GB of ram and not slow down. All that for $220.

Profile: stranger
More Information

I'm running my Q9300 @ 3.0 - 1.32v and 42°C. OCing was as easy as setting the FSB to 1600Mhz from 1333Mhz. I did have to update my BIOS to make it run stable, but no problems after that. I had OCed to 3.4 but I saw no need in that big of a jump so I came back down to 3.0

Profile: Honorary Veteran of THGC
More Information

Most G0 Q6600 seem to hit 3.5-3.6 GHz on air. One person here has hit 4GHz on his.

My Q6600 runs daily at 3.0GHz at stock voltage with the retail Intel fan, and in a Quiet and fairly small Antec Sonata II case. I have not hit a wall overclocking it but decided to hold off going higher to keep the load temps under 60 degrees. When I pull the mobo and install a differnt fan, I'll push it higher.

edit: Yesterday Fry's had the retail Q6600 for $200. It was $186 shipped a few weeks back. That's really quite the bargain IMO. Today their price is back to $259, so check Zipzoomfly who seems to be a few bucks cheaper than newegg lately on them.


Message edited by pauldh on 05-07-2008 at 11:47:25 PM

---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro

Go to:
 
  Tom's Hardware Forums » CPU & Components » CPUs » Q9300 or Q6700? Which to get

Google Ads
Ad
News

Gateway Upgrades Retail PCs To Up To 6 GB Of Memory

Published on June 30, 2008

Gateway announced its updated retail notebook and desktop PC offering for the back-to-school season with prices ranging from $549. Read more

Have Quad-core Processors Arrived In The Mainstream?

Published on March 20, 2008

Pricewatch - If you go out and purchase an average desktop PC today, you will end up with a dual-core system in most cases. Read more

CES 2007: Intel rolls out new quad-core processor Core 2 Quad Q6600

Published on January 08, 2007

Intel is enjoying its lead in the current microprocessor market and today announced more CPUs with four cores. There are three new quad-cores altogether, one desktop processor and two chips for entry-level servers. Read more

Quad-core Xeon E5335 makes early debut

Published on December 13, 2006

Media reports are in that Intel is ready to release a new quad-core processor, marking yet another new product for Intel this year. The Xeon E5335, which was originally scheduled for a February 2007 release, takes its position as the fifth quad-core processor since Intel first released the Kentsfield/Clovertown cores earlier this autumn. Read more

Latest Reviews & Articles

Four GeForce 9600 GT Cards Compared

Published on September 26, 2008

Manufacturers really love the first Geforce 9. The graphic chip is fast, the cards are inexpensive, and some retailers offer more than ten variations. Read more

Maxtor's Shared Storage Does NAS At Home

Published on September 25, 2008

What do you do with all the data you collect at home? Network attached storage is the solution. We test Maxtor's Shared Storage II and find that it is also suitable for use in small businesses. Read more

SLI & Centrino 2: Gaming Laptops Battle

Published on September 24, 2008

Take four gaming laptops. Arm two of them with SLI and make the others Centrino 2-compatible. You're looking at a high-end collection of the latest mobile technology battling it out for benchmark supremacy and your hard-earned dollars. Read more

1,000 GB: Three Samsung TB Drives

Published on September 23, 2008

Storage vendors split the desktop hard drive market into performance, mainstream, and energy-efficient products. We looked at Samsung’s Spinpoint F, the RAID version and the EcoGreen F to discover how a 1,000 GB drive differs from another. Read more