Which CPU is better?

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!
28 answers Last reply
More about which better
  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. whichever is cheaper at the moment of purchase. gonna need better cooling to overclock Q6XXX vs Q9XXX
  4. tough call - the 67 us likely to clock higher especially on lower fsb mobos

    the 93 is better if you have the set up to run 500fsb and have a lot fans on the mobo
  5. travicles said:
    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.
  6. Also why not a Q6600?
  7. Wisecracker said:
    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.


    +1 What he said!
  8. Wisecracker said:
    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.


    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.
  9. sailer said:
    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 :lol:

    From the OP:

    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)


    e8400 = 6346 mb/sec
    q6600 = 5546 mb/sec


    Savvy, Sailer ???
  10. Wisecracker said:
    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.


    i disagree - quad is the only way to go
  11. Shadow703793 said:
    Also why not a Q6600?

    +1
  12. Quote:
    Photoshop CS 3
    Filtering from a 69 MB TIF-Photo

    e8400 = 100 sec
    q6600 = 122 sec

    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.
  13. travicles said:
    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.
  14. hmm, this post didn't really settle my question lol..
    i'm thinking of just getting a Q6600 and overclocking a little
    how does that sound?
  15. The 6600 should work fine. Fry's had them for $189 in the stores last week, and $199 online.
  16. ^+1
  17. q6600 ftw!
  18. I'm with Wisecracker on this one, E8400 and OC to 3.6ghz on stock voltage or 4ghz if you don't mind fiddling.
  19. travicles said:
    hmm, this post didn't really settle my question lol..
    i'm thinking of just getting a Q6600 and overclocking a little
    how does that sound?


    :heink:

    Heh... you still haven't said what it is for.

    You know what... just get what ever:

    Q9300/Q9400/Q9450/Q6600/Q6700/E8400/E7200/E4600/E2200

    I don't think you can go wrong with any of those choices.
  20. Wow, he asked a question and it turned hostile.. From a huge list of benchmarks on business software to just "get whatever you want" thrown at him..

    Now it seems he drifted to the Q6600 out of pier pressure.

    Tracivles, are you looking for a gaming machine?
    Let these people know your intentions so they can give you some
    good advice.. Most of the people on here are very bright and truly
    will not send you in the wrong direction.
  21. Heh.. I asked a question, and he didn't even bother to say, but in return, he says "this post didn't really settle my question lol." and changes his mind on a Q6600.

    So your saying my post with others is hostile?

    Okay swordfish... take the helm... and lead him to shore. :P
  22. For builds it really depends on purpose and budget
    like which CPU is great for home pc and at price range up to $200
  23. bump
  24. Sailer is correct, the Q9450 is way better option - I myself am going for the Q9550 as it's a bit quicker, larger cache, and i want the quad core for running business orientated software/ multitasking etc - apparently intel are adjusting prices on cpu's sometime after June 30 see here (it may help you decide),

    http://www.eggxpert.com/forums/thread/324083.aspx,

    Also, see comparison between your two choces and q9450 and q9550 here,

    http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=33883,33882,33881,891046&familyID=1&culture=en-US

    hope that works,
  25. Why bother with two cores when you can get four. See if you can't get a Q9450, if not settle for the Q6600 and get a proper cooler.
  26. Wisecracker said:
    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.
    I wouldn't really call Powerpoint and Photoshop 'business' software. I'd be thinking more along the terms of 3DS Max or Inventor or perhaps AutoCAD. I've been using Inventor this morning and it does indeed hit 100% on all four cores of my processor during rendering. For a clock for clock comparison between dual and quad core processors the quad core will come in at approximately 50% of the time of the dual core for the operation.

    On the choice given by OP I would personally choose the Q9300 because it is a newer tech (45nm). This is on the basis that both processors are available where I am for £170. Sure the Q6700 has 8MB cache and is clocked at 2.66GHz compared to the Q9300 at 6MB and 2.5GHz but I wouldn't really worry about that.

    To those people that are saying a dual core is the way to go for higher clocks I don't understand this reasoning. Q6600/Q6700/Q9300 they will all clock to 3GHz and at those speeds you will be getting great framerates so long as you get a nice graphics card (say 8800GT or higher). Of course if you want a cheaper build you could go for a dual core if you definitely won't be utilising 4 cores.
  27. OP, how much do you want to spend? The Q9300 is a good choice as it's relatively cheap, in my eyes the Q9450 with 12MB cache at 2.66GHz is the sweet spot.
  28. Quote:
    I'd be thinking more along the terms of 3DS Max or Inventor or perhaps AutoCAD. I've been using Inventor this morning and it does indeed hit 100% on all four cores of my processor during rendering. For a clock for clock comparison between dual and quad core processors the quad core will come in at approximately 50% of the time of the dual core for the operation.

    Agreed. CAD (ie SolidWorks) software and video/photo (ie. Vagas, CS3) editing software will benefit from the extra cores.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Computer Processors