Q6600 vs Q9450: Is $140 Worth It?

Ave,

I'm upgrading my Existing P5W/E6420/2GB PC2-5400 with:

- ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP (P35)
- 4GB (2X2GB) DDR2 PC2-8000 (1000MHz) Dual Channel Kit

For CPU I was going to get the Q6600 ($219). This is a total Video Encoding Only rig. No games, nothing else significant besides daily usage like browsing, downloading. But a lot of Video Encoding!

I know that the Q9450 ($359) will definately give me a little better performance then Q6600 - But is $140 difference worth it? It's quite a bit of an expense. I want to definately Overclock - I know that Q6600 will OC quite nicely on my setup - I don't know about Q9450.

I will have to sell out my limbs to get the Q9450. I just want to determine if the $140 extra is REALLY, REALLY worth it, and will make a DRASTIC difference over the Q6600.

Thanks Guys!

There have been numerous threads asking the same things... price/performance wise at the moment Q9450 is NOT a good deal to me...if the new instructions/bigger cache are more important go yorkfield sir... it will be in a few months when eg Q9650 will be released and the Q9450 will retail at about current Q6600/Q9300 level (rough estimate)... I look at it like this, even if you tend to OC it some with the FSB of the Q9450 ( eg 333FSB) ya Q6600 will already be at 3Ghz and the subsystem will works as speedy as the with Q9450... Most Q6600 do 3.4-3.6Ghz levels but need a beefy cooler then...and ofcourse they require more volts then the Q9450...
I would get a decent cooler with an OEM Q6600, seems to me ya budget is very important...

Just get the q6700....it's like $260.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115053

The Q9450 is worth the extra money... for your application, a few reasons -- more cache, faster clock, cooler. But also SSE4, which some apps are now showing up compiled with the new instructions, this is worth 20-30% gain in many cases.

I have a QX6700 which I can clock to 2.4 GHz and a QX9650 which I can clock to 2.66 GHz ... though I haven't strictly compared them yet in video encoding, I can if you like me to. Let me know, the rigs are set up... let me know what encoding you would like to see.

Jack

Try both CPU's at 3ghz Jack plz (9 x 333) to just go for the bigger cache and instructions and to rule out extra subsytem performance via faster FSB and co...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

The Q9450 is worth the extra money... for your application, a few reasons -- more cache, faster clock, cooler. But also SSE4, which some apps are now showing up compiled with the new instructions, this is worth 20-30% gain in many cases.

I have a QX6700 which I can clock to 2.4 GHz and a QX9650 which I can clock to 2.66 GHz ... though I haven't strictly compared them yet in video encoding, I can if you like me to. Let me know, the rigs are set up... let me know what encoding you would like to see.

Jack

---

SSE4 is what is most concerning to me. The fact that Q6600 does not have that, and Q9xx does. In fact, for that matter, if the SSE4 can make that noticeable difference towards encoding, then the Q9300 isn't ruled out either. Considering the chip is just $50 more then Q6600.

From what I gather, on my P35 setup, on air, I can OC the Q6600 to a stable 3.4GHz-3.5GHz, and the Q9300 to 3.2GHz. (Correct me if I'm wrong. That being the case, the 0.2-0.4GHz is most likely not going to be a HUGE difference. However, in case of video encoding, the SSE4 instructions "might" make the deciding difference.

There is no denying that the Q6600 will OC a lot more then the Q9300 (Or Q9450) for that matter, but it will lack the SSE4 which may impact Video Encoding quite a bit more then the 0.2-0.4GHz (Again, correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Quite honestly, this thread should be re-titled "SSE4 - Worth $50". I was considering the Q9450 earlier, but I don't thing I'll invest that much in the 45nm/Yorkfield for now - It'll either be Q6600 or Q9300 for now. I'll wait for Nehalem or even Sandy Bridge in about 2 years or so to replace whatever I buy now.

But anyhow, now to determine between Q6600 or Q9300 - it all depends on approximately how much more performance/speed I can gain with the SSE4 - Which brings me to your speed-test offer.

Can you possibly use the latest TMPGEnc Xpress (Which supports SSE4, post November, 2007 release) and encode an h.264 (MKV, MP4 container) to a WMV-HD (VC-1) Advanced Profile video and see if the SSE4 makes that drastic difference?

I'll appreciate if you can get back to me on that.

Thanks a ton!