Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q9450 or Q8400

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 17, 2008 7:43:29 AM

ok ive decided on a lanparty DFI-LPUTX48-T2R as its an awesome board
gonna go for the thermalright SI-128 cooler as the old one rocked
memory will be OCZ reaper 1066mhz heatpipe edition as that seems v-good
for the cpu though im drawn between two

Q8400 wolfdale , its a better price but only dual core
Q9450 Yorkfield , more expensive but quad core monsterness :D 

what would you choose if price wasnt a real issue? im leaning to the quad for
'future proofing' (horrible to say i know lol)

gonna run my 8800gt until the new ati come out as the new geforce suck imo.

More about : q9450 q8400

a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 8:07:00 AM

Quote:
E8400 wolfdale , its a better price but only dual core
Q9450 Yorkfield , more expensive but quad core monsterness :D 

what would you choose if price wasnt a real issue? im leaning to the quad for
'future proofing' (horrible to say i know lol)


That all depends on what you are planning to do with your system and if you plan on overclocking.

The E8400 is stock clocked higher and give you better performance in most games. It may also have a higher overclock cap compared to a quad core.

The Q9450 will give you better performance in multi threaded applications. It is also an accomplished overclocker but will probably fall short in this area compared to the E8400.

If you are just gaming, go for the E8400. If you are running any professional applications get the Q9450.
June 17, 2008 8:27:08 AM

First off its called E8400 and Q9450

Second E8400 is clocked higher so it will out preform the quad core in most games(that dont use the extra cores)

But clock the Q9450 to 3 ghz and i would prefer the quad for future programs using the extra cores.

By the way heat is not a real issue i run my new q9300 passive on the germinII clocked to 2,8 ghz...and its between 39 and 43 idle and around 48 - 50 at load....and thats passive..

My E8400 at 3 ghz non clocked is also on a passive GerminII cooler and runs idle at freakin 28 degrees :)  POP IT LIKE ITS HOT
Related resources
June 17, 2008 10:53:56 AM

ok i slipped with the letter , well spotted :)  , i mainly play games and i like to overclock , current mobo is Lanparty UT expert nf4 with amd opteron 165 @ 2.4ghz which has served me well , ill probably go with the 'E'8400 then and use the spare cash on somin like a velcoraptor :)  , can always switch to a quad core later if it becomes more used in games.
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 10:56:28 AM

Yup, if you are mainly gaming and like to OC the E8400 will be your winner. I have heard that 3.6Ghz is a basicly free OC and 4Ghz is fairly common.
Best luck with your new build and enjoy the performance increase!
June 17, 2008 12:05:04 PM

ok , committed now , order is in , comes tommorrow , thanks for advice , seems im a thermalright loyal customer too , got the thermalright cpu cooler , thermalright vga 8800gt cooler and thermalright heatpipe on the mobo as standard , will stick with nvidia card until the ati cards come out and the initial rush on them has faded :) . 8800gt is more than capable and i should get better stability on an x48 rather than the dodgy nforce boards , put off nvidia now after there latest release and attitude conserning dx 10.1
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 12:25:55 PM

outlw6669 said:
I have heard that 3.6Ghz is a basicly free OC and 4Ghz is fairly common.
Best luck with your new build and enjoy the performance increase!

You heard correct my friend :) 
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 12:47:51 PM

Very nice!
If I was not already running a Q6600 I think it would be time to upgrade.
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 1:01:36 PM

[:mousemonkey:3] Thank you. I am in the lucky position of having both, with the 8400 as the game rig and the Quad as general workhorse and TBH whilst I still feel that the 8400 is the better CPU for gaming I couldn't look you in the eye and say it was an 'overall upgrade' from the Q6600, but the Q9550 [:mousemonkey:2] that's what I'm getting a hankering for at the moment.
June 17, 2008 1:47:51 PM

are ou kidding. QUAD CORE is the way to go. u can overclock a quad faster to the stock freq of any dual so go quad.

Either way you look at it windows vista is the future. it is threaded to take advantage of quads so even if your game isnt using all 4 cores your windows OS is. so u can keep your machine up and running and game at the same time. QUAD POWER> if anone tells you dual core they need to open there eyes or perhaps use a quad. dual cores in windows vista even with higher freq just doesnt feel as snappy.
June 17, 2008 3:09:42 PM

@mousemonkey

im sure you need all that 4ghz just to overcome the **** that is norton!
June 17, 2008 3:24:34 PM

even vista doesnt fully utilize the four cores , my m8 has a 6600 and there never all active at one time very often , you know what makes the biggest difference to windows? , the ram and harddrive , when you have a velocraptor and 4gb of ram quad or dual makes sod all difference tbh , ive only seen the advantage of quad so far in video editing , multitasking etc. im inclined to agree with the majority of comments and write ups ive seen on it , which is pound for pound the wolfdale E8400 is a much better buy than the Q9450 , is it worth the extra £70+ for a little gain?.
if the quad cores beome more promenent later on it isnt a stretch just to go buy one tbh and theres bound to be somin new on the market. heck if were saying futureproofing i should be buying a skulltrail lol.
June 17, 2008 4:08:16 PM

samuraiblade said:
even vista doesnt fully utilize the four cores , my m8 has a 6600 and there never all active at one time very often


What? I don't think you'd want that kind of usage. Not even on the E8400. :lol: . o O (I wouldn't even want to see my E4400 at 100 percent on both cores at anytime.)

However, it took me awhile to see how well Vista 64 bit uses my Quad. And I've seen it do things with the cores that I haven't seen it do on XP. So there is a good deal of difference when your actually multitasking. Shoot, if your thinking a Quad core doesn't get used much, then you prolly should go back to a single core, since your basically using one core of two, on a dual, especially in XP.. :kaola: 

In the States, Dollar for Dollar, I find the Q6600 worth it. And I basically do just about anything on it, with no fuss, on a mild OC using speedstep. Even gaming is fine/fun with a good video card. It doesn't have to be OC to the max to at least enjoy playing a game. I don't think SSE4 is much of an upgrade, nor the lower power consumption, or the 7% clock for clock difference, since I'm never in a hurry to get something done, or am I having a difficult time playing a game. And with the right airflow and HS, it runs just as cool as my E4400.

But... each to their own. If people feel as though your wasting money on 4 cores since you don't use them, like you think you should, then think about those who buy allot of RAM, but never exeed it's limit, not even halfway. Or 1 Tarabite of HD space but only use less the 15 percent of it. :lol: 

June 17, 2008 5:06:20 PM

main reason is for the overclock and i play games mainly tbh , with the new lanparty board and 1066mhz ram , i should with the aftermarket cooling i have be able to see 4ghz no probs , just need to juggle the ram multiplier to get the best benefit out of the reaper dimm's. i dont do much multitasking so its not as neccesary for me as maybe for you.
June 17, 2008 5:11:45 PM

ps yes the Q6600 is worth it , but the Q9450 is alot more than a E8400 , i was going to get the Q6600 before the new 45nm chips were released , but now the wolfdales are out they certianly are a better choice over the old conroe/kentfield. dont get me wrong the Q9450 is an awesome chip , i nearly clicked the buyit button! but common sense tells me its too much extra cash for a small gain regarding the type of usage im buying it for. i prefer the idea of using the cash for a velociraptor tbh , seeing the access time on this new baby is incredible!.
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2008 5:28:37 PM

jonisginger said:
@mousemonkey

im sure you need all that 4ghz just to overcome the **** that is norton!

:lol:  , I don't have an issue with norton, my fps in game are the same with or without it i.e high so, meh.
June 17, 2008 7:51:34 PM

Since this is pretty much the same choice im going, I have decided I will go the E series. Instead of making another thread I shall post here. Should I go with the 8400? or spend the extra $80 for the 8500? =)
a c 117 à CPUs
June 17, 2008 7:55:44 PM

saberwing_ca said:
Since this is pretty much the same choice im going, I have decided I will go the E series. Instead of making another thread I shall post here. Should I go with the 8400? or spend the extra $80 for the 8500? =)


save the $80 ...

or buy us all a cool frosty beverage
March 5, 2010 12:51:50 PM

Yes save your doe for a gfx upgrade...or an extra 4gb ram stick
!