Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Q6600 vs Q9300 for gaming

Q6600 vs Q9300 for gaming

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Q6600 vs Q9300 for gaming

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
isaacrobot   08-26-2008 at 12:50:16 PM

what should it be?

any pro's and con's

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
speedbird   08-26-2008 at 01:45:53 PM
- 1 +

Q9300 is a tad faster than the Q6600 and has lower power consumption. The Q9300 also supports SSE 4.1, where as the Q6600 does not. I don't think SSE 4.1 has any relevance for gaming anyhow? The downside is the Q9300 has a lower multi-plier for overclocking and generally more expensive. It should also be noted that the Q9300 has less cache than other 45nm Quads and even the Q6600.

 

The Q6600 is the better bang for Buck

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by speedbird on 08-26-2008 at 01:47:54 PM
Reply to speedbird
quantumsheep   08-26-2008 at 01:55:53 PM
- -1 +

I believe the Q9300 has better power consumption, overclocks higher and is faster than the Q6600. Then again, it is significantly more expensive!

Reply to quantumsheep
outlw6669   08-26-2008 at 01:56:28 PM
- 0 +

2nd speedbird.
At stock, the Q9300 will be a little better.
If you plan on overclocking, the Q6600 will probably go further.
For the $70ish saved, I would get the Q6600 and either upgrade the cooler or GPU.


Message edited by outlw6669 on 08-26-2008 at 01:59:39 PM
------------------------------ If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.
PSA
 Reply to outlw6669
Zenthar   08-26-2008 at 01:59:05 PM
- 0 +

There will be more of a gain if you invest the price difference between the 2 on a GPU upgrade.

------------------------------ The capacity to learn is a gift; The ability to learn is a skill; The willingness to learn is a choice. - Rebec of Ginaz
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/600609.png
 Reply to Zenthar
isaacrobot   08-26-2008 at 02:01:01 PM
- 0 +

can the Q9300 OCed to 3.2ghz?

i dont know much bout OCing yet

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to isaacrobot
outlw6669   08-26-2008 at 02:04:06 PM
- 0 +

That all depends on if your motherboard will be stable at 427Mhz.
If it is, you can probably run it at 3.2Ghz (7.5 x 427).
The Q6600, on the other hand, only requires the motherboard to run at 356Mhz FSB to get the same 3.2Ghz (9 x 356).

------------------------------ If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.
PSA
 Reply to outlw6669
bobwya   08-26-2008 at 02:05:59 PM
- 1 +

isaacrobot wrote :

...

i dont know much bout OCing yet



You just answered your question... Definitely the Q6600 then!! :sol:

Bob

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to bobwya
Grimmy   08-26-2008 at 02:06:58 PM
- 0 +

@stock I thought the wattage is the same (95w). Q9300 is 45nm, clocked 100mhz faster?

I wouldn't say it would run cooler, but it does runs a lil faster/better at stock. For games, I'd say it really doesn't matter much.

OC'ing on the other hand, whelp that's a different comparison. x9 vs x7.5 multiplier. x7.5 can only go so far.

Reply to Grimmy
isaacrobot   08-26-2008 at 02:13:38 PM
- 0 +

ok thnx to all,

i'll go with the cpu that will fit my budget! :D

Reply to isaacrobot
gamerk316   08-26-2008 at 02:29:59 PM
- 0 +

speedbird wrote :

Q9300 is a tad faster than the Q6600 and has lower power consumption. The Q9300 also supports SSE 4.1, where as the Q6600 does not. I don't think SSE 4.1 has any relevance for gaming anyhow? The downside is the Q9300 has a lower multi-plier for overclocking and generally more expensive. It should also be noted that the Q9300 has less cache than other 45nm Quads and even the Q6600.

The Q6600 is the better bang for Buck



SSE 4.1 has as much gaming relevence as DX 10.1 (none).

Reply to gamerk316
terrapin406   11-16-2008 at 03:21:23 AM
- 0 +

bobwya wrote :

You just answered your question... Definitely the Q6600 then!! :sol:

Bob



I'm new to builds and overclocking too and wondering about cpu choice.... so the 6600 is a lot easier to OC? I plan on using this board which the reviewers say is great for overclocking. This board has only one 16x slot but I'll be using a gtx260 so I heard that if in the future I ever went to SLI with the 260 I may need quad core in order to power the SLI setup. Is that true or is a fast duo just as good? Also I will be probably going with a 24 or 26 inch LCD. I don't want to over 1900 x 1200 res though right, even with the 260?

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to terrapin406
bobwya   11-16-2008 at 12:20:24 PM
- 0 +

terrapin406 wrote :

I'm new to builds and overclocking too and wondering about cpu choice.... so the 6600 is a lot easier to OC? I plan on using this board which the reviewers say is great for overclocking. This board has only one 16x slot but I'll be using a gtx260 so I heard that if in the future I ever went to SLI with the 260 I may need quad core in order to power the SLI setup. Is that true or is a fast duo just as good? Also I will be probably going with a 24 or 26 inch LCD. I don't want to over 1900 x 1200 res though right, even with the 260?



outlw6669:

Quote :

That all depends on if your motherboard will be stable at 427Mhz.
If it is, you can probably run it at 3.2Ghz (7.5 x 427).
The Q6600, on the other hand, only requires the motherboard to run at 356Mhz FSB to get the same 3.2Ghz (9 x 356).


The point we are making is that you need better RAM and MB to support an overclock on the Q9300. The actual processor itself should go quite high (with right cooling) being the newer 45nm process vs. the 65nm of the Q6600. The Q6600 has been revised and with the right stepping (G0) should reach >3.2Ghz or so.

Some more info at XS:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] ?p=2597182

I'm no expert (running a 1600x1200 display) but all the charts show that going over 1900 x 1200 needs a hefty multi-gpu solution (for newer DirectX 9.0c/10.x games anyway). :sol:

Bob

Reply to bobwya
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Q6600 vs Q9300 for gaming
Go to:

There are 613 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.462 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?