Is the Q6700 or the Q9450 the best for me? please help

[tlunnuk]

I am building a new budget rendering computer. As of right now, I am planning on using the asus rampage. Realizing this my start war between the x38 fans, the p35 fans, and the x48 fans, I feel that the asus will hold up better in the future in terms of both load and upgradablility.

so far its the asus rampage with 8gb 1066 ddr2.

now i am stuck picking between the q6700 and the q9450. I will probably overclock to around 3.2 ghz, maybe keep it around 3.0 ghz if I am rendering an animation (200 hrs of rendering or so).

I have read many many articles discussing the pros and cons between the two.

my real question is if the extra $100 is worth the efficient and lower heat of the Q9450. I will probably use the thermalright ultra 120 with scythe fans

I need something that will do me well for a year or two before I can build a proper workstation.

 

[JADCorp]

I am considering the same two families of processors (Q6600 or Q9300). I am planning to stay with the P5W DH Deluxe (975 chipset) for a while longer since the system is only about 18 months old. My preference is to use as little power as possible so I am leaning toward the newer 45 nanometer processors. Waiting for benchmarks. If your renders are long and there is a difference in power consumption or you can finish faster, you might just save $100 in energy in the life of the processor.

 

[jaguarskx]

If I remember correctly, the 975 Express chipset will not support the newer 45nm processors (Wolfdales and Yorkfields) because it does not support 1333MHz, only 1066MHz. Therefore, the E3xxx, E8xxx, Q9xxx, and QX9xxx series will not be supported.

The newer P965, which was released after the 975X, can support the 45m processors because it was designed with 1333MHz support from the start.

If Asus has a BIOS update for the P5W DH Deluxe, then you're in luck. However, it will be unlikely due to technical issues.

 

[spuddyt]

tlunnuk, if you are leaving it on for 200 hour stints, the lower power consumption of the q9450 is probably worth it

 

[evongugg]

The specs are not that different. 45nm will run cooler and be more overclockable.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ParentRadio=All&ProcFam=2774&SearchKey=

 

[zenmaster]

If you are going to spend that much money on RAM and a Mobo, you might as well get the Q9450 since the RAM and Mobo will be able to hit High FSB speeds.

However, you could easily get a nice P35 board like the DS3R, some DDR2-800 RAM and then the Q6600/Q6700 and you would save alot more.

If you are not concerned about heat/power usage I would go for the Q6700. And the power savings will not pay the difference.

 

[Murissokah]

I was about to confirm what jaguar said, but it seems ASUS has already made a BIOS revision for the P5W-DH (didn't think that would happen). It can now support any Q9XXX and E8XXX CPUs.
As for the CPU dilemma, I would go for the newer Q9450, more cache, better overclocking headroom (for the cpu taht is). One thing though, my last build was a d805 2.66@3.4. Honestly, its not as much of a boost as it is a hassle. Currently I sit at 66% overclock, so I do like the idea, I just don't think it's worth doing for little gain.
One problem you may face with the newer quad, but only if you wanna get serious with OC'ing, is the lower multi (8x). That means high Front Side is required. for 3.6 gigs, you need 1800MHz FSB (4x450). That is still very doable, but it means you have to choose a good mobo (prefer 8 or more phase regulator and x38/x48 chipset). The older q6600 Has a 10x multi, wich means less stress on the other components. Also, lessens the chance of BIOS struggle.
If you really stick to 3.2, it will mean 8x400 (1600 FSB) on the 9450, good round numbers =). That should be easy to achieve. On the q6700, it would mean 320x10(1280 FSB) or the rounder 3.33GHz @ 333x10(1333 FSB) which should be child's play.
Last thought, I take it you WILL use those 4 cores, cause unless you have a good reason, I wouldn't recommend going quad just for overkill. It draws more, costs more and clocks less.

 

[Vertigon]

Do not get either cpu. A QX6*** series is what you should get especially for a render box. They will oc better than the Q6700 or Q9450 especially with the U120 and fans you mentioned above. They are alot cheaper than they were and teamed up with good 1066 ram and mobo you will have a fine workstation. The FX1700 is a good buy comparable to the FX3700 at around 50% cheaper. This is the sweet spot in workstation hardware right now. Transistor counts:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm#core2

Quadro comparison:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html#pci

 

[snarfies1]

Do not get either cpu. A QX6*** series is what you should get especially for a render box. They will oc better than the Q6700 or Q9450 especially with the U120 and fans you mentioned above. They are alot cheaper than they were and teamed up with good 1066 ram and mobo you will have a

Even though they are a little cheaper, you're still talking over DOUBLE what a Q9450 would cost. If money is noo object, sure, maybe, but if money is no object then why not go for a QX9*** series?

 

[Grimmy]

If his goal is 3-3.2ghz, the Q6600 will do just fine. The Q6700 won't do any better at the same speed. It's only real advantage is the multi, that is if your trying to get the highest OC on Kentfield.

QX6*** I wouldn't recommend, unless again you want the highest you can get on a good MB.

The only thing a Q9450 can off is somewhat better (7%) at the same speed, and SSE4 for new apps that support it, but then again, the Q6600 G0 (edit: 2.4ghz) is a 95W CPU as well as Q9450 at 2.66ghz.

 

[MooseMuffin]

If this is going to be a rendering box, wouldn't it make sense to go the the q9xxx series to get the sse4 features?

 

[Onus]

That's what I'd think too, MooseMuffin, especially with some future-resistance in mind.