Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q9450 vs Q6700

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Motherboards
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 9, 2008 12:05:47 PM

they cost me the same
wich 1 is better with bascly OC for gaming mostly

is it matter wich motherboard and stuff tell me i will post them here

thany for help...

More about : q9450 q6700

August 9, 2008 12:17:05 PM

The Q6700 could reach higher on cheaper/less overclockable boards due to the higher multiplier. If they cost the same and your board supports it get the Q9450.

The rest depends on your motherboard, RAM and cooling.
August 9, 2008 12:18:02 PM

Q9450 without a doubt its a 45nm part which means it should run cooler and overclock better plus it has a higher stock speed.
August 9, 2008 12:30:01 PM

Sorry I thought it was Q6600 for some reason, the stock speeds are the same.
August 9, 2008 12:47:17 PM

No point wasting money on a Q6700, the Q6600 should OC just the same.
However, I would shoot for the 45nm for much cooler operation.
August 9, 2008 12:53:39 PM

Q9450
August 9, 2008 3:43:01 PM

egroeg said:
Q9450 without a doubt its a 45nm part which means it should run cooler and overclock better plus it has a higher stock speed.

i have told the Q9450 is very bad for OC o.O

y the Q9450 is better?

August 9, 2008 3:45:43 PM

come wif free cheeseburger
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2008 4:05:55 PM

actually the q9 series sucks at ocing... but it makes up for it since its faster clock for clock compared to kentsfield... the only q9 series that are good at ocing are the q9650s and q9770s

as for zen master... the q6700 will OC farther than the q6600... if you have a fsb of 450... thats only 4050 on a q6600 and on a q6700 thats 4500 mhz .... big difference... although at that point the mhz difference really won't matter...

if you can get a board capable of a really high stable fsb the q6700 will probably serve you better... but the q9450 does have a 45 nm process, runs cooler, fast clock for clock by about 10 %, and has 4 more MB of cache...

if you can get a q9450 past 4 ghz... the q9450 is a better buy... although its unlikely you will because you need a 500 fsb... and on a q6700 you only need a 400 fsb
August 9, 2008 4:27:16 PM

Quote:
actually the q9 series sucks at ocing... but it makes up for it since its faster clock for clock compared to kentsfield... the only q9 series that are good at ocing are the q9650s and q9770s

as for zen master... the q6700 will OC farther than the q6600... if you have a fsb of 450... thats only 4050 on a q6600 and on a q6700 thats 4500 mhz .... big difference... although at that point the mhz difference really won't matter...

if you can get a board capable of a really high stable fsb the q6700 will probably serve you better... but the q9450 does have a 45 nm process, runs cooler, fast clock for clock by about 10 %, and has 4 more MB of cache...

if you can get a q9450 past 4 ghz... the q9450 is a better buy... although its unlikely you will because you need a 500 fsb... and on a q6700 you only need a 400 fsb


Thogrom, Good in Theory, but bad in practice.
Short of using Liquid Hydrogen Cooling your Q6600 is not going to able able to run at those speeds.
Normally about 3.6 Ghz is the limit for reasonable Voltage settings that will not harm your CPU.
Some folks hit 3.8, but that is less common.
This is a discussion about actually building a computer to use. Not someone taking screenshots.
The Q6600/Q6700 generally hit the the same limits. Neither will ever hit a FSB Wall.

The Q9450 will get to the same 3.6Ghz on a 450FSB speeds which is the close to the max for a quad.
You may get a little more or less depending on the board.

The Q9450 is generally about 5% faster than the Q6600 but if you are doing Video Encoding, you may find that some of the new SSE extensions will allow for much faster operation. Not much software supports this yet, but many should in not too long.

The biggest difference is going to be heat generation.
At 3.6Ghz, there will be a massive difference in the heat output between the two and the cooling required for the case and CPU.
August 9, 2008 4:35:42 PM

zenmaster said:
Thogrom, Good in Theory, but bad in practice.
Short of using Liquid Hydrogen Cooling your Q6600 is not going to able able to run at those speeds.
Normally about 3.6 Ghz is the limit for reasonable Voltage settings that will not harm your CPU.
Some folks hit 3.8, but that is less common.
This is a discussion about actually building a computer to use. Not someone taking screenshots.
The Q6600/Q6700 generally hit the the same limits. Neither will ever hit a FSB Wall.

The Q9450 will get to the same 3.6Ghz on a 450FSB speeds which is the close to the max for a quad.
You may get a little more or less depending on the board.

The Q9450 is generally about 5% faster than the Q6600 but if you are doing Video Encoding, you may find that some of the new SSE extensions will allow for much faster operation. Not much software supports this yet, but many should in not too long.

The biggest difference is going to be heat generation.
At 3.6Ghz, there will be a massive difference in the heat output between the two and the cooling required for the case and CPU.

i am keep hearing about this new SSE some thing
but is it good CPU for gaming?
**i am not gona get C2D

thank every 1 for the help
August 9, 2008 4:37:52 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=306...
(This G0 only gets 3.5)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-...
( This GO's 3.8+ Requires Voltage over 1.5v max recommended voltage)

Toms only Gets 3.3Ghz on the G0, but is conservative on their Voltage.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dual-quad,1720-17.h...

Tweaktown gets to 3.8 Ghz on 1.6V which they admit is too high for real use.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/8/overclocking_t...

August 9, 2008 4:41:12 PM

Yes, the Q9450 is better than the Q6xxx Series Clock for Clock in every respect.

The Q9450 runs MUCH cooler which makes OCing easier.

You will need a current Mobo to reach the 400-450FSB needed to get good speeds from the Q9450. Something like a P45, X38, X48.

Old 965s and some of the originial P35s would not be able to hit that FSB.
August 9, 2008 8:12:08 PM

zenmaster said:
Yes, the Q9450 is better than the Q6xxx Series Clock for Clock in every respect.

The Q9450 runs MUCH cooler which makes OCing easier.

You will need a current Mobo to reach the 400-450FSB needed to get good speeds from the Q9450. Something like a P45, X38, X48.

Old 965s and some of the originial P35s would not be able to hit that FSB.

clock for clock means its better without OC?
can some 1 give me pros and cons of the Q9450?
i cant find it my enternet sux ...
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
August 9, 2008 9:12:14 PM

It is better without overclocking, yes.
August 9, 2008 9:50:24 PM

cjl said:
It is better without overclocking, yes.

how about the Q9450 generly like for games videos doc. and stuff is it good?
is there any pros cons about it?
cuz all i am hearing its better in clock for clock'but i heared it cost like double half year ago so it must be better in something
August 9, 2008 11:04:41 PM

My advice :
Since all you care about is gaming get a cheap dualcore (E7200). When games start using more cores get a quadcore.

Overclocking range:
The Q9450 (8x333MHz) is a bad choice for an overclocking novice. Higher FSBs usually mean more "tinkering" before reaching the FSB limit around 470MHz.

The Q6700 (10x266MHz) is a bit easier on the settings but produces more heat. The limit here will be heat and core voltage.

Performance advantage:
The new SSE argument is irrelevant for gaming(for now), but very relevant for video encoding. For 99% of today's games the E8500 beats the Q9450.
The clock for clock advantage (Q9450 over Q6700) is very small in games.

The price argument :
The Q6600 when it came out was $851. The Q9450 came out about 12 months after it. Newer chips tend to cost more.

If you are new to overclocking get a Q6600. It's better to learn on a sub $200 chip then on an over $300 chip. Whatever you pick put some money into cooling as well (at least get a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283).
August 10, 2008 2:50:10 PM

Andrius said:
My advice :
Since all you care about is gaming get a cheap dualcore (E7200). When games start using more cores get a quadcore.

Overclocking range:
The Q9450 (8x333MHz) is a bad choice for an overclocking novice. Higher FSBs usually mean more "tinkering" before reaching the FSB limit around 470MHz.

The Q6700 (10x266MHz) is a bit easier on the settings but produces more heat. The limit here will be heat and core voltage.

Performance advantage:
The new SSE argument is irrelevant for gaming(for now), but very relevant for video encoding. For 99% of today's games the E8500 beats the Q9450.
The clock for clock advantage (Q9450 over Q6700) is very small in games.

The price argument :
The Q6600 when it came out was $851. The Q9450 came out about 12 months after it. Newer chips tend to cost more.

If you are new to overclocking get a Q6600. It's better to learn on a sub $200 chip then on an over $300 chip. Whatever you pick put some money into cooling as well (at least get a XIGMATEK HDT-S1283).

how far can Q9450 go?
can it get like 3.4?
August 11, 2008 3:09:00 PM

@TrueLook
Depending on motherboard (say X38/X48/P45/P35) and RAM(quality DDR2 6400) it's easy enough to reach a 425MHz FSB (8x425MHz = 3.4GHz).
August 11, 2008 7:11:30 PM

The E8400 is only 169.99 right now, it will overclock to a quick and ready 4ghz, 3.6ghz with no voltage bump, and trades blows with the core2extreme serious at those speeds (in gaming only). Even with games optimized to run on four cores the difference is minimal. I don't think the geometry, AI, and physics engines in games are powerful enough yet to really push either processor (yet...) and so the difference between them both is minor (5% or less even in supporting games).

The 9450 has that giant cache and its architecture is impressive. Even with the difficult ocing it will not bottleneck any graphics card if it reaches at least 3.2ghz (which it does fairly well). Keep in mind with any good processor you are looking at, you are talking about a difference of 2-7 framerates max. My advice: Get the E8400, a decent motherboard, and then maybe a 4870x2 when it comes out. Won't have to worry much about framerates in any game but crysis then.
August 11, 2008 8:34:52 PM

i had my 9450 running @ 3.6. i was having some issues though which i think i've narrowed to my video cards getting too hot (90+) they get past 90 and i get random restarts.. :( 

i didn't do enough research into why the 6700 was priced so high... didn't realise it had 10x multi. I got my 9450 for $250 w\ an ecs board and sold the board for $30... so $220 + tax for my 9450 basically. only 40 more then the q6600 i got the same way (wifes computer @3.0ghz w\ 4gb ddr2-1066)
August 11, 2008 9:46:58 PM

q9450 can get to 3.6ghz easily with low volts and some have even gotten it higher. So the Q9450 gets my vote, but since the Q9550 is now the same price, the Q9550 is the better buy.
August 11, 2008 11:49:32 PM

I missed the price update. Newegg has the 9550 for ten dollars more then the 9450 and in this case it's worth it. Wait a weak though and you may see the 9450 drop below 300.
August 12, 2008 8:52:36 AM

E3210 said:
I missed the price update. Newegg has the 9550 for ten dollars more then the 9450 and in this case it's worth it. Wait a weak though and you may see the 9450 drop below 300.

i saw the price in some stores [in my country] Q9450 cost 300$[very cheap for here] Q9550 cost 415$[also cheap] and Q6700 now cost 360$
so the Q9450 is the best choice?
August 12, 2008 1:32:05 PM

Yes Q9450 for sure with good ram and mobo, will overclock no problem.
August 12, 2008 1:57:45 PM

The Q9450 is based on two penryn cores (two e8200's glued together), so they should be able to reach higher clocks without much of a voltage bumb, as they don't like high voltage like the conroes do.
!