Q6600 vs E8400 vs Q9450

I can't choose my next CPU, so I need some help here :confused:

I want a good CPU for gaming and benchmarking. Everyone says that the Dual Core are the best for gaming, but the quad are the best in 3dMark 06.

So my last choices are these three:

E8400 - about 180-190€ new
Q9450 - about 290€ new
Q6600 - about 225€ new - 180€ or less used

Wich one is the best option at this moment? I don't know what I would do in future, so it can last one year or more, or just some months.

The E8400 is cheap (new), is 45nm, 3.0GHz stock and I think it can get to 4Ghz easily.
Then we got the quad. The Q9450 is newer and more expensive, and I don't know if there is much difference from Q6600, apart from the lower vcore and maybe a bit colder?!

Need some advise here...

I just want a good CPU for gaming and benchmarking, maybe with a new 9800GTX.

Thank you all! :up:

The Q9450 is faster clock for clock than the Q6600, just something to keep in mind. Quads are best for gaming and benching, don't listen to people who say otherwise. Especially if you will be overclocking :)

They make a very noticeable difference in Unreal Engine 3 games.

I could use the cores for several things I do, but other things benefit more from the 4+ GHz the 8400 can do, as well it uses less power. I'm torn myself, but the power usage issue knocks the e6600 out of the running for me.

But many people say that MHZ are the most important for games, and the E8400 can go 4.0GHz easily..

dual now, quad later...for games.
i might get a quad when alan wake come out.

any extra fps you might get in say supreme commander due to quad optimisation will be wiped away by e8400 higher clocks.

quad would be nice but i dont think i'll be utilising the cores...:( as i dont multitask.

Get the Q9450 if you think you are lucky. :)
Get the E8400 if you feel like you want to try out the new stuff.
And ultimately, get the Q6600 if you have the cooling for it. :p:

Each of them has their own flaws:
Q9450: you need... quite a board for this one to perform nice. Could literally the hardest overclocking chip ever.
E8400: watch out for how much volts you put through this puppy... lest you want to end up with a degraded chip.
Q6600: runs quite hot at higher clocks, but if you have the cooling for it, go for it. :)

And how is a quad better for gaming? Show me how a Q9450 at max OC vs. an E8400 at max OC will get me higher FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200. Or HL2...or Portal...or...

I can think of ONE game (SupCom) that MIGHT get a few frames better.....

X3350 (Q9450 Xeon equivalence) at the same clocks as a E8400 performs better than Crysis (about 1.1fps. I've proven that). And that was at 3.80GHz (8 x 475). That's all thanks to the higher caches. :) But max OC? Not sure... the usual clocks are 3.6GHz for Q9450 and 4GHz for E8400, so maybe E8400 has a "slight" edge (0.1fps? The difference between 3.6 and 4.0 on the E8400 wasn't that great. The higher the clock speed, the lower the performance gain. Proven by Anandtech's QX9650 overclocking results). But when you compare them for all other tasks, the Q9450 may come out on top.
And... here are your desired results:

E8400 @ 3.80GHz

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...BenchE8400.jpg

X3350 @ 3.80GHz (with slightly lower-clocked GPU)

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...Bench88gts.jpg

You can see who the winner is by looking at the average FPS on both sides. I chose run1 because at run1, everything was loaded in. 1fps in Crysis is nothing to joke. I didn't test 4GHz because my only intention was to see if Crysis would benefit from Quad processors or not. Seems like not (or not significantly)... but Crysis benefited from the larger L2 cache for sure.

Regardless of your intention, your proof of q9450>e8400 = fail. Clock vs clock isn't a good comparison. If I were to get a e8400, my aim would be 4.2-4.3GHz, and would consider 3.8 a big failure, as would anyone.

Ok. I'm going for the E8400 :clap:
Theres a big price difference between E8400 and Q9450 (100€), so for now I will continue with Dual Core.
Thank you all!

BTW, is Asus Rampage a good option for an E8400? X48...
Or are better chips or motherboars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brahmzy

And how is a quad better for gaming? Show me how a Q9450 at max OC vs. an E8400 at max OC will get me higher FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200. Or HL2...or Portal...or...

I can think of ONE game (SupCom) that MIGHT get a few frames better.....

---

Actually, since the e8400 max OC would probably be much higher than the quad's max OC, it would likely erase any gain from whatever rudimentary multithreading is going on with that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

and would consider 3.8 a big failure, as would anyone.

---

I disagree. Many who are utilizing older P5B/P5K vanilla and other i965/P35 vanilla boards can make 3.8 but not 4.0. For them it is not a failure at all. I have just installed E3110 @ 3.8Ghz in a friends P5B. Considering he had an E4300 @ 3.0Ghz, he is more than happy with this move. I'm certain if I Vdroop modded the board I could make 4.0 for him but 3.8 is certainly not a failure.

So you might wish to amend your statement to say that "YOU" consider 3.8 a big failure as "SOME" others might as well.

Certainly not "Anyone" as I have just proven...

I do agree and would choose the 3110/8400 over the Q9450 as well though.

On a proper platform, it's a failure. On an old limiting one, it's a travesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

Regardless of your intention, your proof of q9450>e8400 = fail. Clock vs clock isn't a good comparison. If I were to get a e8400, my aim would be 4.2-4.3GHz, and would consider 3.8 a big failure, as would anyone.

---

If you can get 4.2-4.3GHz out of the E8400... stable... 24/7, with lower than 1.36v (safe volts) then be my guest. :) FYI, not so many people have been able to do that. Most are staying at 4.0GHz... with about 1.36 to 1.40v vCore. You can take your chances with degradations, but don't say I didn't warn you. ;) I also tested 4.0GHz versus 3.8GHz on the E8400, and I gained like... 0.05fps. Almost unnoticeable. That's why I said 1fps in Crysis is nothing to joke about. Especially when that difference comes from the CPU. :p

And in case you think I can't test the thing any higher, here's the highest clock that my last board could handle (without volt modding):

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...s/SuperPI3.jpg

And... try to beat this with a E8400 at 4.5GHz or even above... if you can. :p

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...isBenchNew.jpg

Last benchmark I ever did with Crysis with that machine before I sold it. 33fps with everything at Very High on 1280 x 1024, VSync enabled. :)

P.S.: By the way, that last bench was with a G94 (GeForce 9600GT), not with the G92 (GeForce 8800GTS G92). ;) I guess some memory tweaks did help.

Edit: Benchmark was Assault_harbor, by the way, not the only-CPU or only-GPU benches. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mitra-

BTW, is Asus Rampage a good option for an E8400? X48...
Or are better chips or motherboars?

---

Can anyone please help me on my second "problem". The CPU is done, now I need a motherboard :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mitra-

Can anyone please help me on my second "problem". The CPU is done, now I need a motherboard :D

---

For extreme overclocking or for 24/7 use? If it's for 24/7 use, you can go with any board over $100 you want. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

For extreme overclocking or for 24/7 use? If it's for 24/7 use, you can go with any board over $100 you want. :)

---

I don't call it "extreme" but it's for some overclock. This PC is only used for gaming and benchmarking. For 24/7 I have other.. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

If you can get 4.2-4.3GHz out of the E8400... stable... 24/7, with lower than 1.36v (safe volts) then be my guest. :) FYI, not so many people have been able to do that. Most are staying at 4.0GHz... with about 1.36 to 1.40v vCore. You can take your chances with degradations, but don't say I didn't warn you. ;) I also tested 4.0GHz versus 3.8GHz on the E8400, and I gained like... 0.05fps. Almost unnoticeable. That's why I said 1fps in Crysis is nothing to joke about. Especially when that difference comes from the CPU. :p

And in case you think I can't test the thing any higher, here's the highest clock that my last board could handle (without volt modding):

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...s/SuperPI3.jpg

And... try to beat this with a E8400 at 4.5GHz or even above... if you can. :p

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...isBenchNew.jpg

Last benchmark I ever did with Crysis with that machine before I sold it. 33fps with everything at Very High on 1280 x 1024, VSync enabled. :)

P.S.: By the way, that last bench was with a G94 (GeForce 9600GT), not with the G92 (GeForce 8800GTS G92). ;) I guess some memory tweaks did help.

Edit: Benchmark was Assault_harbor, by the way, not the only-CPU or only-GPU benches. ;)

---

you could drop your multi, and raise that fsb (if you board can take the beating) and maybe break that 10sec super pi. or try to fool with your ram! break ten sec!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nOcLuE98

you could drop your multi, and raise that fsb (if you board can take the beating) and maybe break that 10sec super pi. or try to fool with your ram! break ten sec!!

---

The board can take the beating. But unfortunately, I couldn't raise vCore any higher than 1.6v without volt modding the board. :( Oh well, pretty darn awesome for an mATX board, I guess. (Yes, it IS an mATX)

I'm getting another one (sold the old one) and this time, I'm going to mod the hell out of it with water cooling. :up: Hopefully, that'll finally break 10s! Or maybe I can get a Q9450 at 4GHz 24/7 stable. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mitra-

I don't call it "extreme" but it's for some overclock. This PC is only used for gaming and benchmarking. For 24/7 I have other.. :D

---

Then for all intents and purposes... 790i! Dual 9800GX2... and QX9650 or Q6700 G0 be the path you should take. May the force be with you. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

The board can take the beating. But unfortunately, I couldn't raise vCore any higher than 1.6v without volt modding the board. :( Oh well, pretty darn awesome for an mATX board, I guess. (Yes, it IS an mATX)

I'm getting another one (sold the old one) and this time, I'm going to mod the hell out of it with water cooling. :up: Hopefully, that'll finally break 10s! Or maybe I can get a Q9450 at 4GHz 24/7 stable. :D



Then for all intents and purposes... 790i! Dual 9800GX2... and QX9650 or Q6700 G0 be the path you should take. May the force be with you. :lol:

---

holy h*ll. 1.6 on a mATX?? niceee. Go break 10 sec!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nOcLuE98

holy h*ll. 1.6 on a mATX?? niceee. Go break 10 sec!

---

After the vmod. :) 1.6 is... by default. The board was supposed to support up to 1.7v, but I guess ASUS did something about it?

Assassin's Creed is much smoother with a quad over the dual...
I can run 4.2 Ghz on my E3110, but some games noticably UT3 games were still smoother with the quad. Assassin's Creed uses a custom engine but it's tuned for multcore, as seen here the dual was 85 - 90% util all the time, the quad much lower but all 4 cores are used. When in cities with lots of NPCs there is a huge difference, quad is much smoother.

I'm headed back to my quad after alot of benching fun with the E3110. Games are smoother on the quad.

E3110 @ 4.1Ghz -
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%2...C/dualcore.jpg

Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz -
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%2...C/quadcore.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mitra-

I don't call it "extreme" but it's for some overclock. This PC is only used for gaming and benchmarking. For 24/7 I have other.. :D

---

Im running a asus 780i mb and 2 8800gtx,s with E8400. At medeum setting and 1600x1200 I get 76fps at 4G in crysis default benckmark and 78.5fps at 4.27G. I also have a Q6600 that will do 4G but its almost 10fps slower at the same settings. The E8400 at 4.27G is also only 200 points (18800) behind the q6600 (19000) at 4G in 3dmark06.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

On a proper platform, it's a failure. On an old limiting one, it's a travesty.

---

You have opinions that you state as fact. That is an aborted method of discussion.

Such discussion is best left to the "Special Education Classes" and of which you seem to excel in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

Regardless of your intention, your proof of q9450>e8400 = fail. Clock vs clock isn't a good comparison. If I were to get a e8400, my aim would be 4.2-4.3GHz, and would consider 3.8 a big failure, as would anyone.

---

So you think it's fair to compare a 4.5Ghz E8400 with a 4ghz Quad... it's like Q9300 is faster clock for clock as the Q6600 as some member stated ( I read the X labs review and I think it's totally biassed ) at the start of this thread... yeah it runs 100mhz faster and has higher bandwith due to 333FSB... if you want to compare you have to do it CLOCK for CLOCK so same multi, same FSB... how else would you do it... doesn't sound reasonable at all.

... if you can see that many games still don't use 2 cores efficiently and Cryis is a good known example, there's no use to sell out 100 Dollars more for the extra 2 cores... FSB and total speed still rules in gaming... (though some games are better and better coded for multi cores)

If it's for gaming go cheap and buy the wolfdale, if you do a mix of apps go quad... for benchmarking : 3D06 benefits from the extra cores the rest of the 3dmarks are MHZ/RAM/FSB lovers... and FYI 2005 doesn't even require the CPU test to be run...

But if you are lucky you can run the wolfie at 9 x 500 for benching with ram at 1200mhz and that will give very fast scores mate comparing to being limited to 3.8-4ghz if ya lucky with the quad...

Go wolfie Mitra and in case you don't opt for SLI bundle it with a good P35 chipset or X48 depending on ya budget ( you already saved 100 dollars on the CPU )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Go wolfie Mitra and in case you don't opt for SLI bundle it with a good P35 chipset or X48 depending on ya budget ( you already saved 100 dollars on the CPU )

---

Thanks for the reply :D

So.. X38 is not an option? P35 is always a better solution than X38?

I love the 790i ULtra SLI motherboards, like the EVGA. They are beautifull, but they are also too expensive. 345€ :shocked: :shakes:

I could buy an Asus Rampage (new) or some other motherboard used (cheaper :D ). Is X38 so bad? Because many people are selling them, so it's easy to get one, like the Asus Maximus Formula or the Abit Quad GT.

Evga mobo's have terrible Droop on the mobo so you would have to set about 0.1 over the required voltage... Asus, Gigabyte mobo's and DFI have a calibration there giving a smoother voltage... I wouldn't step on X38 as X48 is an improved version that's has better features in the bios and requires less voltage to get the same perforamnce level and they aren't more expensive then the X38... and you atalking superexpensive DDR3 here... for most users a no go and I held back my P5E3 premium mobo buy for RAM prices to drop...

If you would stick with a single card for a year I wouldn't even consider a Nforce based mobo

Just in case you came down on the Q9450 end of this debate and are looking for one if you go to the Microcenter front page you'll find a deal for the OEM Q9450 at the top of the page. Click on it and you'll get in your cart for $350 and a coupon for -$50 to bring it down to $300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundamit

Just in case you came down on the Q9450 end of this debate and are looking for one if you go to the Microcenter front page you'll find a deal for the OEM Q9450 at the top of the page. Click on it and you'll get in your cart for $350 and a coupon for -$50 to bring it down to $300.

---

Thanks, but that store is from US and I live in Europe ;)

Leeghoofd thanks for the tip. I think I will buy an Asus Rampage... Am I doing a good choice? Or is there anything I should know about this MB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsleath

dual now, quad later...for games.

---

Agreed with the above poster.

One year of lifetime estimated, i'd still get a dual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DerekT

You have opinions that you state as fact. That is an aborted method of discussion.

Such discussion is best left to the "Special Education Classes" and of which you seem to excel in.

---

Try as you might, you won't be doing any convincing that 3.8 is a good overclock for an e8400, no matter how much sweet talking you do(special ed, heh:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

So you think it's fair to compare a 4.5Ghz E8400 with a 4ghz Quad... it's like Q9300 is faster clock for clock as the Q6600 as some member stated ( I read the X labs review and I think it's totally biassed ) at the start of this thread... yeah it runs 100mhz faster and has higher bandwith due to 333FSB... if you want to compare you have to do it CLOCK for CLOCK so same multi, same FSB... how else would you do it... doesn't sound reasonable at all.

---

It's realistic, and it's the question at hand; go with a higher clocking e8400 or a quad for more cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiths

Try as you might, you won't be doing any convincing that 3.8 is a good overclock for an e8400, no matter how much sweet talking you do(special ed, heh:)

---

I'm one of those people you were talking about. I'm pissed about my 3.85 because I bought this processor with full intent to run it at 4.0 24/7. As fast as it is like this, I'm still disappointed. I think anyone can run any batch E8400 at 3.8 with a capable board.