Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are there any decent reviews/benchies for Q9450

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2008 9:48:43 PM

Bonjour and hola and namaskar comrades...

This is regarding Intel's Q9450. Its quite logical that it would outperform a Q6600 on stock. But what about OC'd results ... what about gaming results ... what about temps ..... how much of a difference is it.....is it worth the $330 at all when a $180 Q6600 and $260 Q9300 co exist...... leaving the issue of multiplier aside since we all know it, are there ANY decent benchmarks available for the Q9450? I was having a hard time finding legit benchies so i thought I'd post here.

Builders contemplating a Q9450 might find this thread helpful.

Cheers.

June 15, 2008 3:41:25 AM

OK, the Q9450 is a nice chip, but it doesn't seem to overclock all that well. The multiplier is too low. Here's a couple references:

http://www.theraptorpit.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1...

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=superpi4os5.jp...

Now get this, the Q9450 only got up to 3544mhz, and on water yet. And take a good look at the core voltage, 1.656v. A well tuned Q6600 or Q6700 will go much higher on air. So while I think a Q9450 is a nice chip, I don't think the results yet show it as a great one for overclocking.

The Q9550 should do better because of its higher multiplier. As for the Q9300, its cheap, but it doesn't put out. Supposedly, in a few months, Intel will release the Q9650 with a higher multiplier that should do very well for overclocking. For now though, the Q9450 does not perform as well as expected, especially when compared to a Q6600 or Q6700.
June 15, 2008 9:10:22 PM

^... those are nice links.

Though i guess Q9450 hasn't been benchmarked/tested yet.... which leads me to the qn: should a guy get a Q9450 at all since its more expensive and not that great compared to Q6600 and Q9300.
June 15, 2008 9:48:25 PM

bottom line as posted over and over

you only gain benefits on a highly oc system or stock systems with high fsb - this intels way to raise prices and performance - moving to stock 1333/1600fsb

next comes no fsb as with nehalem

most systems optimally tuned will clock faster with the q6600 and you get a nice stable system
June 17, 2008 6:31:17 PM

mihirkula said:
^... those are nice links.

Though i guess Q9450 hasn't been benchmarked/tested yet.... which leads me to the qn: should a guy get a Q9450 at all since its more expensive and not that great compared to Q6600 and Q9300.


I've been out of town, so I'm giving my opinion now. Unless there are specific requirements, I don't think a Q9450 is worthwhile, at least for the overclocker. For someone running a stock setup, it should be fine, perhaps better than a Q6600 at stock speeds. I don't think the Q9300 is worthwhile for anything. I would recommend a Q6700 over a Q6600 because of its higher multiplier, especially since the Q6700 has dropped in price. For the Yorkfield chips, I think a Q9550 is minimum when it comes to overclocking because it has a high enough multiplier to get some decent speeds. In a few months, a Q9650 is supposed to come out. when that happens, it will be the equal of the QX9650 in many regards, though not for those who are extreme overclockers. Just my opinion and others may disagree.
June 17, 2008 8:24:58 PM

sailer said:
I've been out of town, so I'm giving my opinion now. Unless there are specific requirements, I don't think a Q9450 is worthwhile, at least for the overclocker. For someone running a stock setup, it should be fine, perhaps better than a Q6600 at stock speeds. I don't think the Q9300 is worthwhile for anything. I would recommend a Q6700 over a Q6600 because of its higher multiplier, especially since the Q6700 has dropped in price. For the Yorkfield chips, I think a Q9550 is minimum when it comes to overclocking because it has a high enough multiplier to get some decent speeds. In a few months, a Q9650 is supposed to come out. when that happens, it will be the equal of the QX9650 in many regards, though not for those who are extreme overclockers. Just my opinion and others may disagree.



q9650 will rule!

its going put the final nail in any amd high end cpu coffins
June 18, 2008 8:50:58 AM

Thanx for the reply Sailer ... so this is the inference... now the Q9300 and Q6700 are equally priced at $270 ... there would be pricecuts for the Q6700 shortly... moreover the multiplier issue makes it a no brainer that Q6700 is a better buy compared to Q9300 ...... (power consumption for Q9300 is less than Q6700 though, but thats not what buyers look for in a CPU)

also the Q9450 is a good buy only for non overclockers since it outperforms Q6700 and Q9300 at stock speeds... for overclockers Q6700 wins out of the three for the same multiplier issue and also price.
June 18, 2008 11:03:44 PM

mihirkula said:

also the Q9450 is a good buy only for non overclockers since it outperforms Q6700 and Q9300 at stock speeds... for overclockers Q6700 wins out of the three for the same multiplier issue and also price.


You got it.
!