Q9300 vs Q6600 (yes another topic)

Ok i have looked through a lot of post and i still and not understaind why people choose the Q6600 over the Q9300? here are a few of my questions. ALSO i do not care about prices or what i need to cool or what motherboard just strait up facts between these two CPUs


Q9300
Operating Frequency 2.5GHz
FSB 1333MHz
L2 Cache 6MB

Q6600
Operating Frequency 2.4GHz
FSB 1066MHz
L1 Cache 128KB+128KB
L2 Cache 2 x 4MB

1. the Q6600 says L2 Cache 2 x 4MB does this mean 2cores share one 4mb L2 vs the Q9300 all 4cores share one 6mb L2?

2. everyone says the Q6600 is easier to OC (because its multiplier is at 9) so if you OC the Q6600 25% you get 1333FSB and 3.0Ghz, however the Q9300 (multiplier at 7.5) if you OC 20% (because 9 is 20% more than 7.5 so you minus 20% from what you OC the Q6600 and 25-20%=20) you get 1600 FSB 3.0Ghz and the Q9300 is relatively working just as hard as the Q6600 but achieving 267Mhz more. so using simple algebra, is seems like the Q9300 is better and working at the same level (not harder or easier) and still getting 267mhz more. I AM NOT 100% SURE ABOUT THIS, THIS IS MY THEORY LET ME KNOW IF I AM MISTAKEN OR IF I DID NOT FACTOR SOMETHING ELSE IN

3. how important is L2 cache difference? I play new games like Crysis, Mass Effect and Quake Wars. I also use alot of Adobe stuff and Rhino4.0 (CADD program). now i dont care about starting up faster the OS or program as much as the over all use. starting up or launching 2seconds faster not important. Having a smoother time using the program/game/OS is more important.

4. I cant find any benchmark results on the Q9300 why is that? I cant seem to find any here is there another place where i can get MULTIPLE (yes i know about cpubenchmark.net but they dont give enough info) benchmark results

5. What really bad and really good things do these CPUs have? Like does one support this feature to make doing something better, or does one (or both) of these CPUs have a problem that may deter people from buying them?


i have searched the forums and some of these question have been answered but not explain why they know (or think they know) why one is better then the other
also no one-sided answers please dont say "Well i have the Q6600/Q9300 and it is great so it is better"

again thanks in advanced to everyone

excuse the accidental extra post...tried to edit, quoted instead....

Q9300 actually has less cache, 3MB per core vs. 4MB per core on the Q6600, however, the architectural tweaks introduced on the 45nm Yorkfield and slightly higher clock speed edge out the Q6600 at stock, about 7%.

Here's the comparison you've been looking for:

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/d [...] html#sect0

As far as overclocking, a lot of older boards and RAM sticks will have a much easier time dealing with the sub-1600FSB you'll ever achieve on a Q6600. 400x9 for 3.6Ghz is about the highest you'll post on air. For equal clocks on the Q9300, you'll need to start approaching the 500Mhz mark on the FSB, which shouldn't be too hard on any good P35 or P45 board, but Xbit didn't like the voltage required to go past 3.5Ghz, and depending on your RAM spec may take a little tweaking.

i.e. DDR2-800 Cas4 when ran with a 480FSB for 3.6Ghz, is going to require you to loosen the timings, up the voltage and run at DDR2-960. Not that big of a deal, but it's something to take into consideration.

No, I mean on one of the best aftermarket air coolers. For stock fans I would estimate 3Ghz or a little higher before temps got too hot.

Personally, I find the $70 difference a little unnecessarily steep when you're looking at about a 5% speed advantage for a 40% price premium. However, if money's not too big of an object, the Q9400 is a better choice over the Q9300. It's only ten bucks more and has an extra half multiplier; 400FSB x 8 for 3.2Ghz is a very attractive, well rounded overclocked that shouldn't be unachievable on stock cooler. The only other real merit I can think of that could possibly justify the premium would be the SSE4 instruction set supported by the new quads, but how much you will actually utilize that is questionable.

Edit: I forgot the 45nm quads have lesser stock heatsinks. I'm not sure what kind of overclocks can be achieved on these new wimpy heatsinks, but if that was your plan you may want to look into an inexpensive aftermarket one. There's a few better than-stock-heatsinks for around 20 bucks, and even top of the line ones like the Xigmatek HDT-S1283 + screw-in retention bracket can be had for under $50. They're well worth it to squeeze out an extra 400Mhz.

I think P43's lack the 8/16-phase power than the P45's have, dont quote me on that though because im not positive. I havnt really done much research on the P43, just some glancing. Dont see why you couldnt OC on it though, but its more of a budget chipset compared to teh P45 so i wouldnt expect the same results.

the p45 was like $20 but hade two PCI EX16 2.0 so yeah i'll get the p45

also it does not say "SLI ready" does them mean i cant put in two Nvidia GPUs or i can but the wont work together? here is the mobo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 813138123R

No current Intel chipset, excluding the Skulltrail one, supports SLI. You'd have to get a 650i or better Nvidia SLI chipset for that. You can, however, Crossfire two AMD cards.

I dont blame them. Its the only way they can get people to buy their **** motherboards.