Q9450 or Q6600? Gonna OC either way, My MB already does 8x multi at 475fsb+.

[jeeka]

Hey guys,
I am at the point where I can buy another Quad Core Chip. I already run a q6600 g0 at 475x8. I can get another chip for a spare machine (or if clocks better, make it my primary chip) but was wondering if could suggest either another q6600 or go with a Q9450 and get the same clocks or beter hopefully.

Here's some preliminary comparo between the q6600 and q9450:


q6600 is about $100 cheaper than the q9450.
q9450 seems to have an fsb wall lower than the q6600, so 475x8 is not a guarantee.
My board already runs my current q6600 at 475x8, so providing the q9450 (and a new q6600 for that matter) can run that, I have not lost anything performance wise, clock-for-clock.
SSE4 instructions on the Yorkfields speed up video encoding of SOME apps/codecs (hopefully more encoding programs/codecs start supporting this)
q9450 MIGHT run cooler than even a q6600 g0 depending on volts.



Can anyone else add to this? I am a multimedia developer, so the video encoding with SSE4 (and hopefully future support by software) is what is peaking my interest right now. But if DIVX is the only thing in the pipeline that supports SSE4, that is not mainstream enough for me to pick up a q9450. I would like to see some MPEG-2, MPEG-4 SSE4 support in Vegas/After Effects, etc...

Thoughts?
Thanks!
jeeka.

[RunawayPrisoner]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181781

^= There's all you need to know about Q9450 (X3350). As for Q6600, I'm sure results are all over the place. I'm running my X3350 at 3.80GHz - 1.344v vCore (1.3500V BIOS) 24/7, by the way. Clock to clock, I think the Q9450 beats the Q6600 hands down.

[Leeghoofd]

1: True
2: True OR False : depends on ya CPU Jeeka ,I have seen Q9450 with 495FSB
3: False you will gain with the extra cache
4: True
5: True

Go for it !!! I've had no luck with latest beta bios (0809) with my Qx9650,( after a complete powercut, would boot and tell me the mobo cannot set multiplier or has detected a wrong VID, with the Q6600 all was fine ), running now 0705 with the York

[jeeka]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181781

^= There's all you need to know about Q9450 (X3350). As for Q6600, I'm sure results are all over the place. I'm running my X3350 at 3.80GHz - 1.344v vCore (1.3500V BIOS) 24/7, by the way. Clock to clock, I think the Q9450 beats the Q6600 hands down.

1: True
2: True OR False : depends on ya CPU Jeeka ,I have seen Q9450 with 495FSB
3: False you will gain with the extra cache
4: True
5: True

Go for it !!! I've had no luck with latest beta bios (0809) with my Qx9650,( after a complete powercut, would boot and tell me the mobo cannot set multiplier or has detected a wrong VID, with the Q6600 all was fine ), running now 0705 with the York

Thanks guys,
RunawayPrisoner I will look into it. Thanks.

Leeghoofd,
"3: False you will gain with the extra cache", this is true, I knew I would be gaining performance, I was just sayin' that I would not LOSE anything performance-wise. hehe :p: I should be a lawyer :D.

I always have reservations about jumping on the first revision of a chip because the "g0" is always around the corner. But then again, something is always around the corner.

I am leaning towards the q9450, for the cache, volts, temps and the "new" factor....

I run 0809 also, so I will have to see if I have better luck than you with it. Did you flash back using the AFUDOS 2.29 ES that is flaoring around? I have it in case someone does not want to search around here for it.

[RunawayPrisoner]

Well, maybe it depends on the CPU, but FYI, mine was able to be validated at 4GHz (500 x 8). ;) Check the very last post in that thread. IMO, the performance difference between 4GHz and 3.8GHz is not that great, and 3.8GHz obviously has room for plenty.

[jeeka]

Well, maybe it depends on the CPU, but FYI, mine was able to be validated at 4GHz (500 x 8). ;) Check the very last post in that thread. IMO, the performance difference between 4GHz and 3.8GHz is not that great, and 3.8GHz obviously has room for plenty.

True. I will now probably jump on the q9450.
Thanks!
jeeka.

[RunawayPrisoner]

If you're going to OC anyway, maybe you'd want to lap your chip. But hey, seeing as to how you have a TRUE and probably some insane air cooling system, I'm not one to talk anymore. :)

[jeeka]

hehe, ya, I am gonna OC it to the max. I have another TRUE waiting for this (currently cooling my soon to be gone e6700). All air cooling here, a couple of 120mm case fans, and one on the TRUE, no water, etc.. That's too hardcore for me :) I will, however, lap it, once I know I have a decent CPU under my TRUE slug.

[Nickel020]

Go with a Q9300 or Q9450 if you can afford it.
If you look at this review (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0), the overclocked Q9300 at 3,5GHz beats the Q6600 at 3,6GHz several times, even though it has half its cache disabled. So the 45nm just have a higher per-MHz performance, even if you don't take cache size into account. And if you do take cache size into account, the Q9450 will perform like a Q6600 that's clocked 150-300 MHz higher (rough estimate considering the numbers from that review).

[RunawayPrisoner]

Sounds cool. :) I'm even thinking about selling mine later on because... uhhh... it's just too much for me to handle, and with a chip like this... I'd like to see someone bring her to 4.00GHz fully stable 24/7 on a good motherboard.

Edit: Or at least do more than a SuperPI 1M run. :up:

[AliG]

I wouldn't get the q9450 unless you have something in mind to do with your q6600 as you really won't be gaining anything from this upgrade, better to save and wait for nehalem and get a quad core with hyperthreading instead

[Spacehead]

50% more prize with 2-3% increase in speed is just :banana::banana::banana::banana:

But why in I BOUGHT A 8800 GTS

which cost 300 euros compared to 8800 GT at 200 euros.


one can be so stupid sometimes.

But if you want to be at the top of the food chain :ROTF: , Q9xxx it is :welcome:

[RunawayPrisoner]

Well, if only it was 2-3%, I would have gone for the Q6600 G0 and overclocked the hell out of it instead. :p It doesn't work like that, apparently. Not only do these chips have higher L2 cache, they perform quite a bit ahead of the Q6600 as well. I performed a SuperPI 1M run at 3.6GHz, and seems like the Q6600 at the same clock speed is slower by 2 seconds. :)

[jeeka]

I wouldn't get the q9450 unless you have something in mind to do with your q6600 as you really won't be gaining anything from this upgrade, better to save and wait for nehalem and get a quad core with hyperthreading instead

Well, if only it was 2-3%, I would have gone for the Q6600 G0 and overclocked the hell out of it instead. :p It doesn't work like that, apparently. Not only do these chips have higher L2 cache, they perform quite a bit ahead of the Q6600 as well. I performed a SuperPI 1M run at 3.6GHz, and seems like the Q6600 at the same clock speed is slower by 2 seconds. :)


Won't Nehelam have an integrated Memory Controller that will require a new MB setup? It's not technically an upgrade for another q6600, it's to replace the e6700 in my spare machine, the weaker of the 2 chips will go there (my current q6600 vs the newer q6600/q9450). I will keep the better one as my primary.

I believe I will get the q9450 ftw.

On a side note:
My e6700 is going to a build for my nephew. I am giving him my PSU, evga 680i, and e6700, he bought an 8800GT, 2GB CAS4 G.Skills, and a 320GB drive, a TRUE, HR-03GT, Case and a Wireless G card.... Not bad for a 16 year old kid :) Lucky punk, when I was his age, I had to use my dad's Pentium 100Mhz haahah.

[RunawayPrisoner]

Well, 2 more years and he can start enjoying Nehalem chips. :p And yeah, good luck with the Q9450 chip. I'm looking forward to seeing some 3.80GHz ultra cool and stable runs. :up:

[jeeka]

50% more prize with 2-3% increase in speed is just :banana::banana::banana::banana:

But why in I BOUGHT A 8800 GTS

which cost 300 euros compared to 8800 GT at 200 euros.


one can be so stupid sometimes.

But if you want to be at the top of the food chain :ROTF: , Q9xxx it is :welcome:

Not really concerned about being at the top of the food chain to increase my e-weenee.

I am a multimedia developer who loves to OC :).
So the 8 total cores would come in REAL handy when rendering HD, MPG, etc, in After Effects, Vegas, and all the other Multimedia Apps, when setup in a 2-up render farm.

[jeeka]

Well, 2 more years and he can start enjoying Nehalem chips. :p And yeah, good luck with the Q9450 chip. I'm looking forward to seeing some 3.80GHz ultra cool and stable runs. :up:

For sure! I will post screens/results either here, or in the "Official" Thread....Give me about a week to get those up.

FUN TIMES AHEAD!

[RunawayPrisoner]

Would you mind trying some Q6600 3.80GHz versus Q9450 3.80GHz benches? I'd love to know how much faster (or slower) the Q9450 is compared to the Q6600. :)

[jeeka]

Would you mind trying some Q6600 3.80GHz versus Q9450 3.80GHz benches? I'd love to know how much faster (or slower) the Q9450 is compared to the Q6600. :)

For sure, seeing as how I run 475x8 anyway, it should be really easy to setup.

What benches would you like to see?

This way, people who have a question like mine can see what happens when you simply swap chips and nothing else to fog the results.

[RunawayPrisoner]

Mmm.. probably the normal good ol' 3DMark, PCMark, and some SuperPI run will be good. :)

[vudulord]

A few question for you guys please?

I am getting the Q9450 in the next few days but not sure what motherboard to get yet. I don't game that much. It will be mainly for DVD compression and VMwares while doing Word, Excel and programming. I am getting a 9600GT. Don't need CF and running at 1280x1024 dual monitors.

I sort of stuck on these two motherboards atm. P5K (same as P5K-1394??) and the P5K-E /WiFi-AP. I don't need the wireless AP as I got a wireless router already, so which of these two will have a higher FSB? Or another MB that around the same price?

Also, is the 2x2GB-800 Kit A-Data good enough? :shrug:

Thanks for any help!