Q7500, a budget quad core for under $150

[Simps]

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$ Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

Ok, I read that review and I found this:

Both CPU's were running on stock multipliers during the tests.

- Q6600 was running at 9.0 x 400FSB = 3.6GHz
- Q9300 was running at 7.5 x 467FSB = 3.5GHz

Just in case you don't know, you just can't compare the processors like that. That is why that review is trash.

In that review:

- Q6600 has the 100MHz raw clock advantage
- Q9300 has the advantage of a 67MHz higher FSB, AND A MUCH HIGHER CLOCKED MEMORY, since they were both on the same strap and divisor.

So, that review is garbage, is not apples to apples, you can't conclude anything from that review.
One way to compare both CPU's, for example, would be to set both of them to 3.5GHz (7x500). Both CPU's can handle a 7 multiplier and a 3.5GHz clock. And then since the FSB is the same, the memory speed would be the same too.

When a user posts a sh/t review like that, trying to make a point, is because he has no idea of what is going on.

[]'s
Simps