Jan 29, 2010 #1 R rjolin01 [H]ard|Gawd Joined Aug 31, 2008 Messages 1,399 Just looking for some opinions as to which is the better. My current Q9400 or a X3210? Would appreciate reasoning also.
Just looking for some opinions as to which is the better. My current Q9400 or a X3210? Would appreciate reasoning also.
Jan 29, 2010 #2 A -=Antimatter=- 2[H]4U Joined Feb 8, 2005 Messages 3,343 The X3210 is 65nm, runs a lot hotter, same low multiplier, and slower stock speed + 1066 FSB. You'd be better off sticking with the q9400.
The X3210 is 65nm, runs a lot hotter, same low multiplier, and slower stock speed + 1066 FSB. You'd be better off sticking with the q9400.
Jan 30, 2010 #4 D Down8 2[H]4U Joined Sep 21, 2003 Messages 3,451 While I loved my X3210 (which did not run much hotter), I would stick with your Q9400 - newer tech, etc.
While I loved my X3210 (which did not run much hotter), I would stick with your Q9400 - newer tech, etc.
Jan 30, 2010 #5 F friend'scatdied [H]ard|Gawd Joined Feb 20, 2005 Messages 1,283 Only advantage for the Xeon is 1MB extra cache per core pair (2MB more total), but at the lower clock speed and FSB it won't make up for the slower performance.
Only advantage for the Xeon is 1MB extra cache per core pair (2MB more total), but at the lower clock speed and FSB it won't make up for the slower performance.
Jan 31, 2010 #6 J jjolin Gawd Joined Dec 21, 2005 Messages 813 Q9400 that cant even reach 3.5GHZ or a X3210 that can hit 4GHZ. And he does intend to oc it.
Jan 31, 2010 #7 F friend'scatdied [H]ard|Gawd Joined Feb 20, 2005 Messages 1,283 jjolin said: Q9400 that cant even reach 3.5GHZ or a X3210 that can hit 4GHZ. And he does intend to oc it. Click to expand... Well then we have missing information, don't we?
jjolin said: Q9400 that cant even reach 3.5GHZ or a X3210 that can hit 4GHZ. And he does intend to oc it. Click to expand... Well then we have missing information, don't we?