3 and 4 are negligible actually. Anything above 2 (per die) is ample for Core it seems. And that's Wolfdale vs Conroe too.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
Printable View
3 and 4 are negligible actually. Anything above 2 (per die) is ample for Core it seems. And that's Wolfdale vs Conroe too.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
You're right Q9400 doesn't always smoke Q6600. It is just plain faster though. You might be right about the Price to Performance ratio for games. That's why I opted for an E8400 but then other apps show that wasn't a great decision, not bad but could have done better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Now my point was that there are other things to consider. Since Conroe first launched Intel has made other improvements each successive core. Cache alone is only one part of the equation. E7500 is a new core and its 3MB or whatever isn't the same as something like an Allendale or etc...... This is not only seen in the legit link I gave but also the one "Macadamia" shows that backs what I was saying. The original question was how does Q7500 compare to Q6600? The Question wasn't how does it compare normalize in relation to Q6600 as that other person mixed up:rofl:
E7500 looks like it might be a very nice bang for the buck budget processor but that depends the price/s.
I wouldn't recommend it any day. Why? Prices from MWave since they often have cheaper prices than Newegg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
INTEL core 2 quad q6600 (BX80562Q6600) 2.4ghz em64t quad core w/8mb cache 65nm 1066mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $186.50
INTEL core 2 quad q9300 (BX80580Q9300) 2.5ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $215.00 -$28.50
INTEL core 2 quad q9400 (BX80580Q9400) 2.66ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) (*While Supplies Last!) $223.50 -$37
Neither is $50 more expensive and both end showing a better bang for the buck. After spending that much money, then to worry about 28 and 37 dollars? Not saying you're wrong but just a difference of opinion.
Does the latest Q6600 overclock better than the Q9300 or Q9400 to make it worthwhile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
im sorry guys but you cant beat a q6600 overclocked to 3.8- 4ghz if lucky im sitting on a 3.8 and it blows smoke i tell you best £110 i spent on ebay :):up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
That depends, I'm going for Xtreme Quiet instead of overclocking. But from what I've seen Q6600 needs a 266MHz headstart to keep up with or beat the other two (most, not all apps). Q7500 will do alright with its small amount of cache IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Yes, but how about the multi and price difference ? these are the deciding factors to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
Pretty much it...... I myself consider 9x multi the bare minimum for decent OC'ing, given the quads FSB wall. The price difference just enforce my q6600 choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
On a side note, I speculate that, even tho the q7500 will be chocked bad by lack of cache (comparing to high end quads), it will still be much faster than high end duals in multi threaded scenarios ... So its not like it has no market.
I'll see what I can do...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzfest05
That's cool and it is a win win situation since Q6600 is no slouch. I just got through telling someone that Q7500 will be a better option that most Dual Core models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
The other reason I disagreed about the cache. I think if folks looking to use a processor in a way that eats up cache like; Multitasking, VT and etc.... shouldn't be in the market for a Q7500 and look at something like a Q6600, Q8200 or etc.... There will be apps or scenarios where Q7500 will choke but many others where it will not.
Thank you for the civil-ness of your post.:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
Intel makes sure that their own product lineup won't fight with each other while the lower end processor eats the portion of higher end one.
I ran the celeron 1200 for a while when I was waiting for my q6600. It was fine, besides longer render./encode times the OC on it was fine and my machine ran fine, but it wasn't a gaming machine either, i bet that would have been very noticible, but i bet that 13x multi is very fun. I would buy this chip just ot play if it turns out to be a nice overclocker then after playing I would still have a decent chip,.... :surf:
modern X86 architecture actually needs a lot of software optimization to squeeze every ounce of power out of the microprocessor.
somehow, the benchmarking software do not actually reflect the actual performance of that particular cpu. The size of L2 cache is actually heavily depends on the architecture, especially the branch prediction and pipeline stages design. C2D is actually a well balanced design with adequate pipeline stages and branch prediction algorithm, that's why their L2 cache is so efficient.
Even AMD is to adapt the same L2 cache size of C2D, it will not be able to match C2D clock to clock with their K10 architecture.
I was under the impression that the core architecture was even more cache hungry than the k10...?
It is, hence its price :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by eXa
If it sells for 150 on launch, in a few days/weeks it will be even cheaper.
sounds good to me. cheap quads. there must be a downside though.
13x300? very interested to see the oc's for this one, and the cache limitations obviously.
I think they've forgotten Post #73:DQuote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=73