Is this good for overclocking?

[novasoft]

If this good for overclocking and cooling?

CPU: Intel Q9450
RAM: Corsair 4GB (4x1GB) 1066 CL5
CASE: Antec 900
PSU: Corsair TX 750W
MOBO: Asus P5E x38
CPU COOLER: Noctua NH-U12P
CASE FAN: NOCTUA NF-P12-1300 (I know that the case already have 4 fans, but why not have another one. )


Other things i gonna have:

GPU: 2x Radeon 4870 1GB CROSSFIRE
HDD: 2x HITACHI DESKSTAR P7K500 500GB 7200 SATA
DVD: LG DVD:RW(bla, bla, bla) SATA

Will the CPU be bottlenecked by the GPU's?

 

[shadowduck]

Yes that is my setup except I use the Q6600. If you want the best overclock possible look at the Q6600. The reason why, is the Q6600 uses a higher multiplier. So 9x400 = 3600 with the Q9450 8x 400 = 3200. Reason why 400 is good is because you can run DDR2-800 at 1:1. Since you chose DDR2-1066, that does not matter as much, but still work considering.

Don't buy 4x 1GB, buy 2x 2GB. Look for something with 4-4-4-12 timings if you can.

Are you gaming on a monitor larger than 24" or at 1920x1200+ ? Otherwise, Xfire/SLI setups make little sense.

I doubt the CPU will get bottlenecked.

 

[shadowduck]

I hit 3.6 on the stock cooler without issue either on my Q6600.

 

[shadowduck]

Been running it since December 2007. I have seen quite a few people hit 4GHz on it (with water of course).

It also depends what stepping they are using. B3 stepping on the Q6600 does not go anywhere close in overclocking as the G0 Stepping does.

Sure about that? A stock Q9300 at FSB1333 will outperform a Q6600 at FSB1600? The cooler thermals I can go with. But the FSB is higher on the overclock, so on that I don't know.

 

[shadowduck]

It runs stable, and I did NOT have to raise the default vcore. By going to 1.5V i hit 3.78 but that would not boot into windows. It prime95s for 24 hours without issue. Its stable.

 

[rodney_ws]

Can someone fill me in on the "compatibility" issue here... if you're talking about what boards support the CPU out of the box, sure... an older processor almost always will win that... if that's the case, it's a non-issue because anyone looking for a performance rig is going to be comfortable flashing a BIOS.

 

[modtech]

Well since the E7300 falls behind in benchmarks that make good use of cache (some games are really cache hungry, others are not) the 9300 would be no different. In encoding there's no competition, 45nm hands down but cache matters when the clock speeds are matched. Well anyway I'd rather buy a Q9450 or a Q6600 than a Q9300.

 

[modtech]

The older Q6600 is cheaper, has more cache, overclocks well enough and it isn't allergic to high vcore. I'm not saying it's a better cpu.

Cache vs FSB? Well AFAIK cache makes a bigger difference in gaming.

There is the 7200 not the 7300:
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E7200/?page=6

Now other factors like power usage, temperature and overclockability are debatable but the fact remains that the Q6600 is a bargain right now and its 45nm sibling is currently overpriced.