Q6600 VS 45nm Quad Core

[Ramo1203]

I already owned a E8400 that ran 3.6GHz (400*9) at 1.225v. I gave it to my brother for his build. Now I'm hesitating...

I already have some hardware : HD4850, 2x2GB 1066MHz, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in high resolutions the GPU is more important than the CPU. So a Q6600 at 3Ghz (a small OC 333*9) is more or less (by like 3-4fps) equal to a E8400 right? So a good OC'd Quad Core is not a bad option for Gaming. I also heard Quad Cores are also great when it comes to confort, like multitasking.

Are the newer 45nm Quads worth it? They have less cache (6MB) and the multiplier is lower too but they have a lower power draw and heat dissipation (Q9300, Q9400 for example).


I plan to overclock my CPU, so :

- With the Q6600, I could get without much trouble 3Ghz (333*9).
- With a Q9400, I could get without much trouble 3.2GHz (400*8).

Q6600 (3.00GHz) VS Q9400 (3.2Ghz) I can't decide...

I would love to get the Q9550 for the 12Mb of cache, but it's too expensive for me.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

I have both a Q6600 and a Q9650. Yeah the 12mb of cache is huge, and the 45nm quads oc really well. I would imagine other will tell you to go with the Q9550, but the 8.5x stinks IMO, and the 9400 is even worse with a 8x.

I would go with the Q6600 for the 9x multiplier. Also if youre willing to run the Q9400 at 400FSB there is no reason the Q6600 cant handle that. I had mine at 9x445 for a 24/7 rig and was an still is a excellent chip.

 

[BrooksyX]

I would go with the a q6600. I have one and its still a beast of a cpu when overclocked. The q9400 is also decent but also costs a lot more than a q6600. So I would go with a q6600 unless you can afford a q9650, forget about the q9550.

 

[PennySavre]

A Q9550 might be worth it over a Q6600, if the motherboard is good enough to overclock well... but other than that, I think the Q6600 is fine.

 

[Ramo1203]

So Q6600 is overall a better option apparently. I guess my Thermalright HR-01 PLUS can handle the heat along with plenty of fans from my CM 690 so heat is not a problem. So a Q6600 at 3GHz (333*9) with 4GB of DDR2 1066MHz along with a HD4850 512MB, is it going to run nice and good with games?

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

Yes it will run games very well, however I still dont see why you would limit it to only 333Mhz when it is capable of much more for very little extra heat. The Big heat build up comes from over 400Mhz FSB (3.6Ghz). UNder that and it's very managable on air cooling.

 

[LittleLizard]

go for the q6600 as is cheaper, has more cache and once overclocked performs great

 

[BrooksyX]

Yes it will run games very well, however I still dont see why you would limit it to only 333Mhz when it is capable of much more for very little extra heat. The Big heat build up comes from over 400Mhz FSB. UNder that and it's very managable on air cooling.

Its not the FSB thats the problem. Its the voltage. Once you set a Q6600 over about 1.4v it really starts to heat up. And you have to give the q6600 lots of volts if you plan on running the fsb in the 400 range.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

Its not the FSB thats the problem. Its the voltage. Once you set a Q6600 over about 1.4v it really starts to heat up. And you have to give the q6600 lots of volts if you plan on running the fsb in the 400 range.

Exactly what I said. Anything over 400 is pushing it with good air cooling. Of course all of this is assuming you will have a quality OC;ing chip, which may not even happen. The last batches of Q6600s do not seem to clock as well as the earlier batches.

 

[Ramo1203]

Well I was reading at the moment about the max voltage for a Q6600. For 24/7 use is 1.4v a good idea?

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

It depends...YOu will have to test and see what a stable 24/7 OC.

Also the Q6600 has 2x4mb cache and the Q9400 has 6Mb cache

 

[BrooksyX]

Well I was reading at the moment about the max voltage for a Q6600. For 24/7 use is 1.4v a good idea?

Really depends on your temps. I would say 1.45v~1.5v are fine voltages as long as your not reaching 70 C on full load.

 

[lemonadesoda]

The Q6600 at 333/3.0 Ghz is quite fine for any problem you throw at it. For gaming, with a decent GPU, pushing it to 400/3.6 Ghz isnt going to change gameplay in any way noticable.

For rendering and encoding the 20% gain on 400 over 333 gives you some w00t stats, but in real world use, it doesnt change much.

If you really arent happy with a Q6600 at 333/3.0Ghz, I doubt you will be happy with any Q6xxx/Q9xxx even at 400FSB, and you need to think about 8 cores, ie i7 or dual CPU Xeon.

IMO, better cool and silent and good enough.

 

[Ramo1203]

Thank you VERY much guys for your help! So I guess I going to go for the Q6600, can't wait to test out this legend everbody talks about!

I'll post some pictures of my upcoming Rig with the Q6600 as soon as it's ready!

 

[Ramo1203]

Change of plans! Found a cheap Q9450 on a swiss auction website, 2.66GHz and 12Mb of Cache! It's the same price as a new Q6600 so I didn't hesitate one seconde!

 

[LittleLizard]

good, it will oc well