Q6600 or Q9300

[Disha]

Hi everyone!

I`m choosing parts for computer and I'm wondering which quad to choose:

Q6600 or Q9300

I`m planing on OCing a bit, hoping to get around 3.2GHz...

Which one of those 2 processor would be better?

Thanks!

 

[enigma067]

Neither would perform better then a native quad core simply because they are Multi-Chip Modules.

I advise against the purchase. Instead, stay away from the Modules and purchase a native (real) quad core.

 

[Disha]

I`m sorry, I must be "natively" illetterate but could you explain what you mean by a "native quad core"?

Isn`t a "quad core" a "Quad core"!?!?

 

[cjl]

Enigma is an AMD fanatic. Pay no attention to his garbage. If you're curious what he's talking about though, the AMD quads and the Intel Core i7 are quad cores with all 4 cores on a single processor die. However, the Intel Core 2 Quads are instead a pair of dual core dies, hooked together within the CPU. This configuration with 2 dual core dies is referred to as a multi chip module. They perform great, and have no significant performance disadvantages as they are implemented right now.

Between those two, the Q9300 will perform slightly better at a given clock speed, and run cooler with less power. However, the 6600 could perhaps give a slightly higher absolute overclock. For 3.2GHz or so, I'd just go with the 9300, as it will easily hit that and run cooler.

 

[blackpanther26]

what he means is the Q6600 and the Q9300 are really 2 Core 2 Duo's glued together on one die. Where like the AMD Phenom and the Intel Core i7 are acually one chip with four cores. I wound advise against getting the First Phenom which is the 95xx series instead wait for Phenom II which should be out in 2 days. But if you can't wait I would say the Q6600 would overclock higher just make sure you have the GO stepping. I would stay far a way from Intel Core i7 simply becuase it is too expensive right now.

 

[50bmg]

depends on what is important to you.

The Q6600 Overclocks better and cache is a bit better.

The Q9300 is 45nm, will use less power, runs cooler, higher FSB and a bit higher stock clock.

 

[spathotan]

Neither would perform better then a native quad core simply because they are Multi-Chip Modules.

I advise against the purchase. Instead, stay away from the Modules and purchase a native (real) quad core.

This is ridiculus and should be reported as spam if I knew where the button was. Youre precious Phenoms sure have proven to be better than intels "not native" quads, havnt they?

@OP At this point in the game, the Q9300 might be a better buy simply for the 45nm and higher stock clock. Yes it has a lower multiplier, but thats not a problem if you have a decent motherboard chipset that can support high FSB's, like a P35/P45, 965/975, X38/X48....

 

[papalarge123]

Out of the 2 to choose, i would recommend the Q9300,

the Q6600 is cheaper, and has 2mb more L2 cache, but runs on a higher Vcore, runs hotter, and slightly slower clock for clock than the penryn quads (Q9300).

although the Q6600 is a good overclocker, the Q9300 should be able to hit the same speeds on overclock but with a slight increase in speed (about 5-7%) over the same clock speed as the conroe core (Q6600).

i believe the extra £20 (uk) will warrent a great purchase.

good luck

 

[enaher]

I`m sorry, I must be "natively" illetterate but could you explain what you mean by a "native quad core"?

Isn`t a "quad core" a "Quad core"!?!?

Native quad cores, are "real" Quad cores, its 4 Cores on a single die on a CPU package... but a "Fake Quad" its two Dies on a single package like the Q6600 thats actually 2 E6600 packed together its a Dual Dual Core, jejeje... but for mi a Quad core has four cores thats all... and performance wise Intel Fake Quad performs better...

AMD Phenom 9950 is a real quad or native, yet it still gets severely owned by a Dual Dual Core like the Q6600... hell a OC E5200 give the Native Quad a Though time , jejeje

Between the Q9300 and Q6600, if you want to save some cash go with the Q6600 it'll reach 3.6 Ghz, if you dont mind spending more the Q9300 its a bit faster clock for clock, it might overclock to 4 Ghz, its runs cooler, runs on less power... but performance wise at the same clock speed you'll only notice the difference in benchmarks not in real life...

With all said i believe the Q9300 is slightly better Buy...

 

[M3d]

Neither would perform better then a native quad core simply because they are Multi-Chip Modules.

I advise against the purchase. Instead, stay away from the Modules and purchase a native (real) quad core.

LMAO!! I love how serious it sounds. "Multi-Chip Modules"...comedy gold!

I would get the Q9300. It's on a 45nm process so it should run cool and should OC nicely past 3.2. Just make sure your motherboard can handle at least 1600FSB.

 

[Disha]

Guys, your replys are really helpful!

I have to say, I didn`t expect to start an AMD-Intel fight lol. I had a big laugh. I guess I can understand both sides since I used to be a strong AMD defender but saw the light in recent years when Intel asked them to bend over and...... ;-) I guess you have to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and right now Intel owns AMD. Force to admit it.

Thank god I have good teachers!! I now know the difference between module quads and native quads! You pretty much convinced me to go with Q9300.

spathotan:
I'm planning on getting the P5Q-E. It seemed to be a decent base to OC at affordable price. again, I`m looking to OC but I`m not trying to build a rocket so I just need something reliable with OCing capabilities.

cjl:
the idea of going with i7 went through my mind. The problem is not the difference in price with the processor but more the fact that getting an i7 means getting a more expensive mobo and most likely more expensive memory.

BTW, I was planning on getting some Corsair XMS2 6400C4 DHX with the Q6600. I pictured that if I OC from 266 (Q6600 -> 1066) to 400, I`d be at 3.6 which is more than I'm looking for. If I go with the Q9300, in order to reach 3.2, I`d need to bring the FSB around 425 which, If I understand well, means that the 6400 wouldn`t be enough isn`t? Would I be better off to go with XMS2 PC2-8500 (1066Mhz)?

 

[spathotan]

Just get some 1066 memory, also you wont/dont need the expensive Corsair stuff, just something with good timings and heatsinks that wont break the bank. Also the P5Q-E will be fine.

 

[nocteratus]

Just get some 1066 memory, also you wont/dont need the expensive Corsair stuff, just something with good timings and heatsinks that wont break the bank. Also the P5Q-E will be fine.

I think he means DDR2-800 will do.

Since ddr2-1066 are ddr2-800 chips OC to 1066mhz...

Usually ddr2-800 can easily OC to 900Mhz+

 

[Disha]

oooh didn't know that nocteratus! Still learning!!

So I could stay with the 800 I was planning on getting then?