Yorkfield Q9450 vs Kentsfield Q6600 at 3.6Ghz

Just a few numbers from my ES Q9450 that I've been playing with for awhile :)

http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/297476.png
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=297476

Running at the 1333MHz bus it features 2x6MB L2, 6-8 multiplier range and some lovely 45nm technology squeezed into it.

First some bad news :( .....

Seems the FSBwall it pretty low on these ES chips - 478MHz :(

http://valid.x86-secret.com/cache/297477.png
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=297477

The x8 multiplier really limits the maximum GHz overclock on these cpus. HEre's hoping that the retail ones scale better!

...Let's see how it scales up to its predecessor the Q6600 ?

System setup

abit IX38 QuadGT
2x1024MB Team Group 450@4-3-3-8
Vvikoo 8600GT
Swiftech Compact H2O cooler
Silverstone 850W


I've decided to run both at 3.6Ghz (8x450Mhz) due to the limitation on the Q9450 FSB. Both cpus run on the same system running the same specs. The only difference was the the Q9450 vcore was 1.3volts whereas the Q6600 was 1.45volts:

Lets see some comparisons:

1M SuperPi
Q9450
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...450 1M run.JPG

Q6600
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...600 1M run.JPG

32M SuperPi
Q9450
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...50 32M run.JPG

Q6600
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...00 32M run.JPG

32M/1024M WPrime
Q9450
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...prime runs.JPG

Q6600
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...prime runs.JPG

3DMark06 CPU Score
Q9450
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...0 3D06 run.JPG

Q6600
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...0 3D06 run.JPG

Power consumption and Heat
Q9450
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...50 Prime95.JPG

Q6600
http://www.itsjohnnybravo.com/Overcl...00 Prime95.JPG

Check out that current rating with all four cores loaded, the Q9450 is drawing nearly half that of the Q6600. Add to this the fact that the Q9450 requires less voltage and it's safe to say that the Q9450 is a very efficient cpu. As a result the temperatures are alot lower on the Q9450 when running all four cores - so less complicated cooling is required.

Great stuff too bad they don't have something at a reasonable price with a 9 multi... my QX9650 has been delayed till 23rd of January pffffffff

I was thinking about getting a 9450, but with a lower FSB wall, and low multi, its making me rethink about which of the new cpu's I want. This or E8500.

looks good, but like mentioned pretty much limited by 8x multiplier....

pita leeghoofd, hopes it comes soon m8!

The 2k6 and power section pics aren't loading for 15 minutes now.

Firstly, yep, all the Yorkies I've seen apart from the QX have been low FSB, C2 achievable MHz. Though they are ES.
Secondly, do you have any other benchies? Systools 32M, EVEREST, Pov-Ray, WinRAR, AM3, NuclearusMC, SuperPrime, CPUZ latency, some encoding/decoding?

Thanks. :)

If you want 4.0GHz on air you best go Q9550. Thing about the Q6600 is it will often be easier to get 3.8 with it due to FSB walls and the lower multi the Q9450 is dealing with. I'd rather a 3.8GHz Q6600 than a 3.6GHz Penryn and to each their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

The 2k6 and power section pics aren't loading for 15 minutes now.

Firstly, yep, all the Yorkies I've seen apart from the QX have been low FSB, C2 achievable MHz. Though they are ES.
Secondly, do you have any other benchies? Systools 32M, EVEREST, Pov-Ray, WinRAR, AM3, NuclearusMC, SuperPrime, CPUZ latency, some encoding/decoding?

Thanks. :)

---

Thread fixed - cheers

Will run other benchies if there are others interested? Don't have the programs atm :(

My god over a full second faster in Super pi 1m at the same clock speeds/ram speeds. Very impressive.

Thanks for the tests. :)


The 8 multi plus the fsb wall makes a 9450 not a viable solution for enthusiasts. Only 9550 with 8.5 should be considered just to fight for the 4ghz barrier.


If E8500 turns out to be a great oc'er there will be many dual core reverts... ;)




NVidia must have something to do with this :lol:

just when I thought I would be satisfied with a Q6600
the power and heat is what is really making me second guess

I highly doubt the Q9550 will do 4ghz stable daily. In my testing, it's good for some quick benching (1-16m, aquamark) 3dmark was max 3.95ghz

I just want 3.6GHz, but with only 8x multiplier I would need 450 FSB and I don't know if the D975XBX2 can do that

max quad fsb on XBX2 is 390-395ish AND is it supported on this 975x mobo ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supertim0r

I highly doubt the Q9550 will do 4ghz stable daily. In my testing, it's good for some quick benching (1-16m, aquamark) 3dmark was max 3.95ghz

---

I agree (from what i've seen). That why i stated that u have to fight for 4ghz on a 9550.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blacklash

...I'd rather a 3.8GHz Q6600 than a 3.6GHz Penryn and to each their own.

---

Actually, due to the performance differences seen above, I'd be pretty interested in seeing a Q6600 @3.8GHz vs Q9450 @3.6GHz comparison. Any chance of seeing that JB?

3.6ghz penryn would whoop a 3.8ghz conroe at divx ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spanki

Actually, due to the performance differences seen above, I'd be pretty interested in seeing a Q6600 @3.8GHz vs Q9450 @3.6GHz comparison. Any chance of seeing that JB?

---

If the OP doesn't mind i would be very interested in that test too,
It would be very interesteing to see where the performance intersects....

and of course a penryn woulod would a conroe at such close speeds as one has twice the cores..... what we are intereseted in is the diffefernce between 2 quad core processors just with different cache, due to the newer yorkies being multi limited it may not be time to upgrade that q6600 yet especially if you can get a 3.8ghts 24/7 overclock on it.

Great post! I'm pre-ordered for a Q9450 myself. I hope a BIOS revision on X38 will help ameliorate the Yorkfield FSB wall.

I wonder how the production chips will differ - if at all - from the seed samples...

so what will be better perf wise??

q6600 g0 @ 3.8ghz or q9450 @ 3.6ghz?

when is the q9450 coming out retail?

Interesting test. Comparing the two 32M times, you get 6.66% performance improvement at same clockspeed (similar to the 6.5% the xbit lab article quoted as average performance gain). 6.66% at 3600 is ~240 mhz, so theoretically a 3.84 Q6600 should equal a 3.6 QX9450, but would be nice to see tested. (1M superpi showed 8.6% improvement, but thats more prone to variability error)

Nice to Compare .....I still waiting my Q9450 ES

Great comparison that brings some light to the differences between the Q6600 and the Q9450.

I´m waiting the Q9450 launch, to buy a Q6600 for 150€. :rofl: :ROTF:

Ill wait until i see what the prices of the Q9450,Q9550 and QX9650 will be when they are all available together.

Yeah those were exactly my reservations and I was hoping for easy high FSBs which they've not been so far, neither have the E8400/E8500. :(

Chip looks good -> for cold/power.

24/7? I'm not and most people cannot run high FSB, most people do not have an X38 either. And so far over 8 I've seen have topped out ~3.8GHz Pi with 1.4-1.5V/sometimes even water and less than that was stable. So in effect it would be 3.6GHz 24/7 again as with Q6600 G0 and that's considering the top two multi models.
So the good comparison is 3.6GHz compared to each other ideally because 450FSB sounds a very good balance to me and achievable by many boards/chips. People can make up their stats looking at just these figures.

The best one I'd like to see is the 2.5GHz stock Yorkfield compared to Q6600 oc'd a little. It'll show what difference there is in the core without the extra cache these Yorkies have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

First some bad news :( .....

Seems the FSBwall it pretty low on these ES chips - 478MHz :(

---

CPU FSB wall or motherboard FSB Limit???


btw: nice tests Q9450 vs Q6600

i thought the difference in 3dmark 2006 CPU score between both CPUs would be more than 240 marks .....

its seems only in superpi the Q9450 its way better ( cache) , also in Power consumption and Low voltage , but for me thats secundary



Temps difference :

Q6600 @ 3600Mhz@ 1.40v = 60º
Q9450 @ 3600Mhz@ 1.34v = 50º


i can bench 3dmark 2006 with my Q6600 @ 4Ghz and Prime stable @ 3.8ghz with ~1.48v (all Aircooled) also Q6600 have multi x9 , so in my case i think beside Power comsumption and Low voltages its not worth changing !



regards

I think the biggest advantage for most people (aside from apps that will take advantage of SSE4 instructions), will be relatively high stable 24/7 overclocks with lower cooling costs.

People who see benching as more important will likely be better off with 65nm parts, unless they have the cash to burn for the higher/unlocked multiplier models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mascaras

CPU FSB wall or motherboard FSB Limit???


btw: nice tests Q9450 vs Q6600

i thought the difference in 3dmark 2006 CPU score between both CPUs would be more than 240 marks .....

its seems only in superpi the Q9450 its way better ( cache) , also in Power consumption and Low voltage , but for me thats secundary



Temps difference :

Q6600 @ 3600Mhz@ 1.40v = 60º
Q9450 @ 3600Mhz@ 1.34v = 50º


i can bench 3dmark 2006 with my Q6600 @ 4Ghz and Prime stable @ 3.8ghz with ~1.48v (all Aircooled) also Q6600 have multi x9 , so in my case i think beside Power comsumption and Low voltages its not worth changing !



regards

---

Same for me!

biggest disappointed for this model is the 8 multi

been waiting for this for months and finally gave in on a q6600 and now i
have mine prime stable at 400*9 with only 1.32 so temps are nice anyway

i wonder if we could unlock the multi :D just like the old days of athlon-XP

dream on :( best we got now is half multi's back at no penalty to ram

A few places have Q9450 on pre-order for about $350-380 - It's going to be about $100 more than Q6600 at launch (whenver that is)

Got to love low power & low heat, but it's a shame about the low multi :(



P.S. Thanks for the sharing the informative testing Johnny Bravo! :clap:

In the UK a Q6600 is around £160 ($320) so 350-380 for a Q9450 isnt bad, still I'm not impressed by the low FSB.

what does it mean to be an ES chip compared to retail?

Its an Engineering Sample. So its a good indicator as to how retail CPUs will operate at stock frequencies but OCing may change a bit depending on if he has an early or late revision ES as I'd imagine the first samples perhaps dont OC too well and may have bugs.

You can pre-order Q9450, E8400, and E8500 HERE.

Q9450 - $349.99
E8500 - $304.99
E8400 - $209.99

Do the engineering samples of the Q9450 not have unlocked multipliers????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cliffy

Do the engineering samples of the Q9450 not have unlocked multipliers????

---

used to in the old days - not anymore :(

These 45nm quadcores dont seem as impressive as I had hoped =[

Hmm . . . with these results, I wonder if the E8400/E8500 will be a better buy.

Hey Johnny Bravo,

Do you still have your Abit IP35 PRO? would love to see some results with that Q9450 in comparison to the Abit IX38 QuadGT. . . ! :) i.e especially FSB.

Thanks for sharing your results by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelly

Hey Johnny Bravo,

Do you still have your Abit IP35 PRO? would love to see some results with that Q9450 in comparison to the Abit IX38 QuadGT. . . ! :) i.e especially FSB.

Thanks for sharing your results by the way.

---

I'll see what I can do mate ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

I'll see what I can do mate ;)

---

Excellent!! :clap: :bravo: = :up: lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scotty1991

These 45nm quadcores dont seem as impressive as I had hoped =[

---

we're we really expecting them to be mind blowing thou?
afaik this is the 'tock' of intel's 2 cycle approach for which the whole idea was to prepare the smaller process for the next major revision while reducing power and adding a couple of low level features to the previous revision.
Seems as if intel has done that and with the addition of things like that asus epu i think we'll see some really efficiant computing this year.

edit: hahahahah mind u this is xs so wtf!? y ain't they faster (>.<)

I am thinking the e8500 is the way to go for me too. Sigh...... If only AMD had a competitive quad.

looks like a q6600 g0 is the way to go

Great work :up:

I've pre-ordered a Q9450 today. I think its worth the change. Less power, less heat, less noise and better performance :up:

Ok my Q6600 can also do 3800Mhz stable but it gets really loud to keep it cool. With good Cpu and good water cooling Setup the a Q6600 may still be the good choice. But for air cooling i think the Q9450 is the better deal.

greetz

Tim

JB, are you able to get measurements for the systems at the plug? I'd be interested in total power draw difference for the two setups. Total wattage under full load from a kill-a-watt or similar. Half the amp draw in software is impressive, but what are the savings at the plug?
I'm wondering how much of the juice savings is burned up in the higher fsb etc.
Basically.. how big is the KWH/day difference going to be?

Disappointed with Q9450, I just release my Q6600 to friend.

I enjoyed the results, less power consumption, less heat and a similar performance as the Q6600 with lower FSB.

To keep it cooler it will be easy even with the stock cooler and some OC.

Nice test, but I expected more of a 45nm (to bad the multi x8)

Nehalem 4 me. my $ already earmarked for N sys upgrade.

q9300 & q6600's supposedly at same price points.

i will not even consider a 9450 @ intel's proposed pricing.

e8400.
its easy to say q6600 as 9450s arent even avail. yet.
who knows exactly what price jiggling & further tests will result pre nehalem.

The results are disappointing as a matter of fact for me.. The big L2 cache and the less power/heat just don't do the trick for me. I'd have really preferred a bigger multiplier available for Q9450/Q9550, even if that would have meant bigger prices.
I think I'll go for the cheapo Q6600 as I should have done that a long time ago now.. Bad decision this time for me to hold..I should have upgraded to Q6600 for some time now and wait for Nehalem..

Guys I have a question because I haven't kept up much with the Q6600 GOs O/C.. (sry for the OT question I just don't wanna flood the place with new threads if I can avoid it)

I have a E6600 for a year and a half now and I can do 3.6GHz with 1.5v and around 55C idle temp with a TR Ultra xtreme 120.
If I'm to go with a Q6600 GO I have a major question with basically 3 subparts if you look more closely to it..

Is it highly possible to achieve a 24/7 3.6-3.8GHz O/C with this cooler (on high end air that is)?
Any good batch I should look for?
My W/C needs some tweaks and I'll keep it on air for a while so your feedback is really appreciated..
Thnx in advance

Glad I read this... I was actually just shopping around for Q9450 preorder prices. I have a B3 Q6600 in my machine right now, and a G0 Q6600 sitting here on the desk (that I got for really cheap, and was going to sell...).

I'm going to seriously consider opening this G0. I never really thought about it... to get the 4ghz I'd want (to justify the $100 difference in keeping the G0 and buying the Q9450) my board would have to do 500fsb 24/7. It's an MSI Neo2-FR which is really good for the money, but 500fsb, 24/7? Seems like I'm setting myself up for disaster.

Like dertimaushh said, I think that since I have water and a board that probably won't be doing 500fsb+ all day every day the G0 Q6600 is a better choice. Especially since I already have one AND it's the cheaper option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hymay

JB, are you able to get measurements for the systems at the plug? I'd be interested in total power draw difference for the two setups. Total wattage under full load from a kill-a-watt or similar. Half the amp draw in software is impressive, but what are the savings at the plug?
I'm wondering how much of the juice savings is burned up in the higher fsb etc.
Basically.. how big is the KWH/day difference going to be?

---

I'm also quite interested in this because I'm going to run it on full load 24/7 (DC you know).
Even a $100 price difference when buying the CPU might not matter if I'm running it for at least 2 years.

Having the numbers enables the math ;)

For a moderate overclocking with "conventional" cooling (aka air) , let´s say 3600MHz tops, i think that the Q9450 is a better choice,

for higher flights the Q6600 might be the answer, but nothing is guaranteed.

If the prices of the Q9450 stays under 300€ my choice is made, if not Q6600 here i go :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sssf

I'm also quite interested in this because I'm going to run it on full load 24/7 (DC you know).
Even a $100 price difference when buying the CPU might not matter if I'm running it for at least 2 years.

Having the numbers enables the math ;)

---

Exactly why I wanted to know the draw at the plug :D For me, even a 30% savings at the plug is only about 3-5 bucks a month... depending on your elec cost. So at 3 bucks.. the juice "savings" would take over 33 months to just match the $100 price difference, and even longer to see any benefit.
Meanwhile, your cpu runs cooler.. and may take less wear.. but your MB has to run hotter to maintain a decent OC.

Intel is working on new 45nm revision for low-middle Yorkfields to fight with high-fsb instability. Also, there is new upcoming P45 chipset with native 1600FSB support.
Provided all goes well, this combination may prove successful for really stable 500FSB OC for 24/7 use.
But i think, we should also wait for the next price drop from Intel and opt for Q9550.

So, to summarize, Q6600 for now, or Q9550(new revision)+ P45 + price drop later.

hm.. still havent found any reason why a Q9450 is worth the change right now.. any more testings?

JB,

any chance of evening up the vcore for the Q6600 and Q9450 to see what the actual amps draw is for both processors in idle and then under a wPrime 1024M bench load?

i'm sure they'll get faster 45nm cpu's in later revision, now it's to soon to see which generation can achieve the highest clocks

I think the winner in the locked chips will be the E8600 if you want dualcore.

The new quads are nice, but those multi's just suck. 4.4ghz on E8600 is very possible for 24/7

I'd rather wait till they release a Q9650 in like 6 months.
the 8 and 8.5 multiplier are just too low to bother with.

I really liked my Q6600 but not enough to give up the potential behind a good E8400 or E8500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelly

Hey Johnny Bravo,

Do you still have your Abit IP35 PRO? would love to see some results with that Q9450 in comparison to the Abit IX38 QuadGT. . . ! :) i.e especially FSB.

Thanks for sharing your results by the way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo

I'll see what I can do mate ;)

---

Hi Johnny Bravo, did you manage to test the Q9450 on the Abit IP35 PRO? :)

i still get the feeling that q6600's will be more popular when yorkfields turn up; however it will be interesting to see who and how many start spieling about yorkfields when they arrive at retail, and who/how many keep their q6600's - in the rarified atmosphere of the extreme.
:wasntme:

new things seem to run like dominoes thru' this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsleath

i still get the feeling that q6600's will be more popular when yorkfields turn up; however it will be interesting to see who and how many start spieling about yorkfields when they arrive at retail, and who/how many keep their q6600's - in the rarified atmosphere of the extreme.
:wasntme:

new things seem to run like dominoes thru' this forum.

---

i'd have to agree. who's going to fork up an extra $150 for 1 second faster in super pi. i'd love to get the new cpu, but being fsb limited, what's the point. i'm probably only going to get 450fsb out of my 780i, which means i'll get a better oc out of my 9x q6600.

maybe waiting for the q9650 makes more sense, but then again, maybe the price will be ridiculous. hopefully next gen mobos can do 550-600fsb! :)

Got mine today, 440fsb max, ppl, vcore, cascade everything tried and tested to make it go some but nowt. Not bad for &#163;200 inc shipping for an ES chip.

Bin fodder now as it's crap!

8 Multi is going to make this a hard decision between the Q9450 and the E8400/E8500

but the lower multi will limit speed since quads still scale less favorably with fsb. after reading on sse4, penryn's have less of an edge over conroe's. while clock for clock, there are still improvements, q6600's are cheaper and are still hitting 3.6-3.8 fairly commonly nowadays.

Okay so it did what i use the pc for faster than anything i had to date so far at the max clock this chip could do. However i got the chip hoping it'd clock more thus making it overall faster...sadly it's not the case.

But if you want lower powerusage, lower clock and less heat but same power for say ya 3.8 q66 then ideal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

Got mine today, 440fsb max, ppl, vcore, cascade everything tried and tested to make it go some but nowt. Not bad for £200 inc shipping for an ES chip.

Bin fodder now as it's crap!

---

Great feedback. So even cascade won't help it. As I thought, cold usually have few if no effect on FSB wall. Q6600 is the way to go or more expensive 9x multi penryns

If the GX2 is solid I may try two of those in a 790i motherboard with a Q9650. Of course I'll have to buy DDR3 too. :p:

what happened to the numbers on page 1? There isnt any results

I'm so glad I jumped this upgrade... The Q6600 owns the new Q9450 in my board...

My 24/7 setup runs very cool and with tinny volts with DDR@1200Mhz:
CPU 1.26v Bios 1.28-29v CPU-z
NB 1.36v
VTT 1.255v

And those volts are still workable especially NB and VTT could go lower with a little less Vcore (1.27v real is goal).

Pc is inside a closed case and Fans on Rads working with 7v that's why I get higher temps then normal...

http://i30.tinypic.com/2pq83sg.jpg

awsome thread, is very helpfoul to decide

Thing is, i held out for over a year waiting for 45nm...so it's worth the upgrade for me, as you can see:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Thing is, i held out for over a year waiting for 45nm...so it's worth the upgrade for me, as you can see:

---

My Q6600 without the stress testing I was doing (mix Prime95) run's on similar voltage and temps...

What mobo and chipset are those complaining of the 8x multi using to make this claim. Remember they said this of the Q6600 when it was new, yet when you look into it, the mobos used were very average and most not even overclocked to keep up. I use the 8x on just about all my CPU's even if they have a higher one. I like the higher FSB anywayz.

I'd like to see some Q9450 @ 480 - 500FSB results on an X38/X48 or even top notch P35 and better brands by either ASUS or DFI. My 1.5yo+ Q6600 can do 480 500FSB on 8x multi so if the Q9450 cant beet that on same mobo and OC, then thats not gonna be fun. In fact, I used on the ASUS P5K Deluxe Q6600 @ 480x8 as daily user and at 1.588v. What kidn of vcore can the Q9450 handle on the upper end. How does it handle increased PLL and GTL volts? These are gonna be the limiting factors to keep it from getting higher FSB then older Q6600. Mine was running PLL of 1.712v for over 1 yr solid.

Also keep in mind, a revision change can and may be made since the old ES cores out there and can often be better, not always, but somethimes. This is so for the Penryn Duals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jor3lBR

I'm so glad I jumped this upgrade... The Q6600 owns the new Q9450 in my board...

My 24/7 setup runs very cool and with tinny volts with DDR@1200Mhz:
CPU 1.26v Bios 1.28-29v CPU-z
NB 1.36v
VTT 1.255v

And those volts are still workable especially NB and VTT could go lower with a little less Vcore (1.27v real is goal).

Pc is inside a closed case and Fans on Rads working with 7v that's why I get higher temps then normal...

http://i30.tinypic.com/2pq83sg.jpg

---

Intel Q6600 @ 3600Mhz 1.26v (Vdrop Enabled)
Intel Q6600 @ 4005Mhz 1.4v (Vdrop Disabled)

im sorry i dont belive that voltage for those clocks.how is this possible.please explain in great detail for me.not to sound rude but your the only person i know on the planet who can run a q6600 24\7 3.6 at 1.26volts on decent water,hell even on phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by railmeat

Intel Q6600 @ 3600Mhz 1.26v (Vdrop Enabled)
Intel Q6600 @ 4005Mhz 1.4v (Vdrop Disabled)

im sorry i dont belive that voltage for those clocks.how is this possible.please explain in great detail for me.not to sound rude but your the only person i know on the planet who can run a q6600 24\7 3.6 at 1.26volts on decent water,hell even on phase.

---

It is possible If you have a good Batch Q6600 with low VID a good mobo and understand about GTL REF.

If you read the post you quoted from me I set 1.26v on BIOS and CPUz reads 1.28v. I've heard that before this is one of the lowest stable vcore one achieved on the Q6600 @3600Mhz (I'm very happy with it I will lower that soon enough).:up:

This was in my old X38:
http://i29.tinypic.com/28sa5io.png

i intend to buy a q9450,i have in present q6600 ,its a good choice?

See page 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mit78

i intend to buy a q9450,i have in present q6600 ,its a good choice?

---

this it is my new computer

Corsair 620 HX Modular
Antec P182
G.Skill F2-8000CL5D-4GBPQ
Pioneer 215D
DFI Lan Party LT X48
Intel Core Quad Q6600
Noctua NH-U12P
Nexus D12SL-12 BW Real Silent
Gigabyte 9800gtx+
Western Digital SE16 WD6400AAKS



but do I have a very important doubt?
Q9450 or Q6600

that cpu will offer better performance in two or three years,Q9450 or Q6600.

does it really exist between both an appreciable difference?
will there be a lot of performance difference between both in two or three years?
you could give me your opinion.

Thank you

+1 for q9450 but the q9550 is the same price. It has SSE4.1 instructions compared to Q6600 that doesn't have it.

I have Q6600 @ 3.6ghz stable ... check my specs and template ... and its a early batch number .. like 4 weeks ago is when i go it.

I saved over $130.00 instead of buying a Q9450 and i get very similar performace as my friend who has a Q9450 at 3.6ghz.

Some say i got a lucky one, others will say there is still good ones out there, some will say its the settings use, some will say its the memory and or mobo used.

I say i don't care as it works.... :)

the Q9450 pwns. I want one now plox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sssf

I'm also quite interested in this because I'm going to run it on full load 24/7 (DC you know).
Even a $100 price difference when buying the CPU might not matter if I'm running it for at least 2 years.

Having the numbers enables the math ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hymay

Exactly why I wanted to know the draw at the plug :D For me, even a 30% savings at the plug is only about 3-5 bucks a month... depending on your elec cost. So at 3 bucks.. the juice "savings" would take over 33 months to just match the $100 price difference, and even longer to see any benefit.
Meanwhile, your cpu runs cooler.. and may take less wear.. but your MB has to run hotter to maintain a decent OC.

---

Sorry to revive an old thread but....I have the same questions....Anyone have legit numbers "at the plug" that I can use to do the math?

45nm is better than 65nm at energy saving, its all in the thermal design and power draw. You can read about this on Intel website. Lots of folks were spinning myths in this thread.