I am building a computer and I have everything decided except my processor. Right now, it's between the Q6700 and the Q9300 or maybe neither of these are the right choice. Hopefully you can help me out. Thanks!
The best CPU for you depends on what you plan to do with it, I suppose. If some gaming and general use I'd say get a quad. What quad you get, then, depends on what you plan to do with it. Are you gonna overclock it as many that frequent this forum do or are you going to leave it at stock speeds as most the people in the world would?
---------------
Yes, I use an Intel Quad. Sometimes its a little overclocked, sometimes a bit underclocked. Yet, its always nice and the virtualiztion is sick. And?
I voted for the Q6700. Its older technology, but the higher multiplier allows for better stock speed, and makes overclocking a bit easier if you do that. The Q6700 also has a larger cache, which can make some programs run a bit faster. The Q9300 makes it as a quad and is possibly a bit cooler running in stock form, but leaves a lot to be desired otherwise, in my opinion. A better choice would be a Q9450, which has the same stock speed as the Q6700, runs cooler, and has an even larger cache.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
I am building a computer and I have everything decided except my processor. Right now, it's between the Q6700 and the Q9300 or maybe neither of these are the right choice. Hopefully you can help me out. Thanks!
Neither.
Unless you will be using software which will run multiple parallel threads across those four cores (like Vegas or Premiere for video encoding) a quad is really of no use to you.
Purchase an e8400 and put the extra money toward more RAM or a better video card.
Unless you will be using software which will run multiple parallel threads across those four cores (like Vegas or Premiere for video encoding) a quad is really of no use to you.
Purchase an e8400 and put the extra money toward more RAM or a better video card.
+1 What he said!
Message edited by 1971Rhino on 06-06-2008 at 01:55:44 AM
---------------
E8400 @ 3.8Ghz linked and synched with 2GB Corsair DDR3 @ 1700MHz/EGVA 790i Ultra/2 x 9600GT in SLI/2 x 500 GB Seagate HDD/Samsung 24" 2493HM/Antec 900
Unless you will be using software which will run multiple parallel threads across those four cores (like Vegas or Premiere for video encoding) a quad is really of no use to you.
Purchase an e8400 and put the extra money toward more RAM or a better video card.
The problem with your answer is first, it doesn't address the question the OP has, and second, you're making an assumption on the OP's needs. He very well be using software that will will multiple threads across the four cores. Not everybody is a gamer who simply wants the highest possible clocks. Many people, like myself, use their computers for business as well as games, so a quad core makes good sense for such people. So your answer doesn't help the OP make his decision, but only confuses the issue.
The problem with your answer is first, it doesn't address the question the OP has, and second, you're making an assumption on the OP's needs. He very well be using software that will will multiple threads across the four cores. Not everybody is a gamer who simply wants the highest possible clocks. Many people, like myself, use their computers for business as well as games, so a quad core makes good sense for such people. So your answer doesn't help the OP make his decision, but only confuses the issue.
Reading comprehension is your friend
From the OP:
Quote :
Right now, it's between the Q6700 and the Q9300 [quote]or maybe neither of these are the right choice.
As far as ""confusing the issue"", perhaps you will provide us a list of your ""business software"" which will run multiple parallel threads across those four cores.
MS Powerpoint 2007 - Acrobat 7 Pro PDF
115 Pages Powerpoint File to PDF (High Quality, 128 Bit RC4 Encryption)
e8400 = 111 sec
q6600 = 134 sec
AVG Anti Virus 7.5.467
Scan: Vista Enterprise (Windows folder) 8 GB
e8400 = 63 sec
q6600 = 80 sec
WinRAR
Version 3.7 BETA 8 (THG-Workload)
e8400 = 145 sec
q6600 = 177 sec
Photoshop CS 3
Filtering from a 69 MB TIF-Photo
e8400 = 100 sec
q6600 = 122 sec
Clone DVD 2.908
Transcoding DVD 9 to DVD 5 GB (Terminator 2 SE) (Convert DVD-9 to DVD-5)
e8400 = 424 sec
q6600 = 504 sec
SiSoftware Sandra XI
Memoy Floating Point (Version 2007.5.11.40)
Unless you will be using software which will run multiple parallel threads across those four cores (like Vegas or Premiere for video encoding) a quad is really of no use to you.
Purchase an e8400 and put the extra money toward more RAM or a better video card.
That dosen't look right. I have used CS3 on both a E8400 and a Q6600 and imo, the Q6600 feels more responsive when working with 200MB files and multiple files @ the same time.
I am building a computer and I have everything decided except my processor. Right now, it's between the Q6700 and the Q9300 or maybe neither of these are the right choice. Hopefully you can help me out. Thanks!
You would need to explain what the system is for, and if you plan on OC'ing the CPU for extra performance.
If you plan on running it stock all the way, the only difference would be SSE4 support which the Q6xxx lacks. Other then that, they would perform about the same at stock in my opinion.
If your comparing dual cores, they may seem faster in benchmarks, but the difference is the stock speed of the cores. That is where OC'ing Quads can makeup for speed when comparing them.
oren84@hotmail.com 
