8400 or 9450?

Don_1

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2000
Messages
699
I'm kind of leaning towards the 8400 since they seem to be awsome overclockers, but then again the 9450 is calling my name as well.:D
Which one and why?
 

Mr. Bluntman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
6,682
I would go with the E8400 since most everything doesn't take full advantage of 4 cores. Mostly rendering apps and video encoding are the only things you will see the most benefit from outside of server apps. Not even Crysis has appreciable gains going from a dual to a quad (a couple of fps).
 

0100

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
341
What will you be using the computer for? Without that info we can't tell you "which one and why?"
 

Don_1

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2000
Messages
699
What will you be using the computer for? Without that info we can't tell you "which one and why?"
Gamming mostly....
Some surfing...
some MP3 encoding, and ripping dvd's to my drive.
Mostly gamming..
 

crhscoog

Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
548
at the price that e8400's are being sold at you can get the q6600, just for consideration. dual cores are the processors to get for gaming really but its best to get quad core imo so when games start utilizing the 4 cores youll have it already.

if you really have to get a dual core right now then get a e6750 because unlike the e8400, the e6750 are sold at a reasonable price.
 

ymic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
243
Q9450, because its a 45nm quad core. I plan to get one as soon as I get my credit card paid off.
 

Don_1

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2000
Messages
699
I already have a QX6700 rig @ 3.3GHz and an E6850 rig @ 3.6Ghz rig:eek:

I'm thinking I want something that will run cooler and maybe clock higher, but won't break the bank.
 

ymic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
243
I already have a QX6700 rig @ 3.3GHz and an E6850 rig @ 3.6Ghz rig:eek:

I'm thinking I want something that will run cooler and maybe clock higher, but won't break the bank.


6850 @ 3.6?? I have a 6750 @ 3.8 :-P
 

HenryBravo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
357
the e8400 are really overpriced right now so i discourage you from buying them.

4ghz+ and 6 mb cache for $300 is overpriced? Show me a better deal. With a 9 multiplier and 45nm process it's quite easy to reach 4ghz on air cooling. I do realize these processors are difficult to find in stock though.

HB
 

doormat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 18, 2000
Messages
4,251
I think they're both hard to get. So availablity isnt a benefit of one over the other.

Unless you're ripping your entire DVD collection to MPEG4 (Part 2, Part 10, etc) then you might as well just get the dual core and clock it up to 4GHz. The quads will do 3.3-3.5, so it'll be slower if its single threaded.
 

RussianHAXOR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
5,590
If you have a dualcore right now and its not running at 100% when you are doing something intensive then go with the E8400, the stuff i do just kills my CPU and having 4 cores for me would be a godsend.
 

Mr. Bluntman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
6,682
Like I said, it's all about the workload you will be putting upon it. If you think you will get more out of a quad-core rather than a dual then go for it.
 

UtopiA

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
3,509
Doesn't the Q9450 have a multiplier of 8?
Doesn't that make it, umm, useless?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

michael.pa2

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
2,998
Doesn't the Q9450 have a multiplier of 8?
Doesn't that make it, umm, useless?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I've seen in reviews is that though the 45nm cpu's run cooler and use less power,they aren't as good for overclocking than,say,the Q6600.Combine that with the kind of prices I've been seeing for the 9450,and I'm beginning to think the 6600 is still the better value.
 

joker331

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
103
What I've seen in reviews is that though the 45nm cpu's run cooler and use less power,they aren't as good for overclocking than,say,the Q6600.Combine that with the kind of prices I've been seeing for the 9450,and I'm beginning to think the 6600 is still the better value.

The whole reason why the e8400 is out of stock is because they overclock great.
 

kadozer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
1,881
Partly true. . there's a shortage and limited supply given to etail/retailers. Few of the batches are great (requiring less than 1.35volts to hit 4.0 ghz) and most are just above average.
 

VE2007

Gawd
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
703
I'm getting the 9450 just because its new and ready for anything that comes out?:D
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
632
This is a now brainer: for games, you want more GHz so get the e8400...if you can (hard to get the stock but worth the wait).

I'd love to get the q9450 just because it's the latest and greatest..but if 90% of the time the other 2 cores aren't used, and if 4 cores isn't benefiting the games i'm playing *today*, and if I don't do video processing 90% of the time...i'd choose 4Ghz bragging rights over quad core :)

given e8400 is hard to find, i'd actually consider the q6600. those babies can give you 3.6Ghz on decent air cooling, so you'll have the 4 cores so you can cover that 10%.
 

aethelwulf

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
1,938
4ghz+ and 6 mb cache for $300 is overpriced? Show me a better deal. With a 9 multiplier and 45nm process it's quite easy to reach 4ghz on air cooling. I do realize these processors are difficult to find in stock though.

HB

Q6600 for $200 at Microcenter and OC to 3.6. I would consider the E8400 a good deal when it's selling for MSRP, but with the mark-ups we're seeing, it's getting less and less attractive.
 

Smigit

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
108
This is a now brainer: for games, you want more GHz so get the e8400...if you can (hard to get the stock but worth the wait).

I'd love to get the q9450 just because it's the latest and greatest..but if 90% of the time the other 2 cores aren't used, and if 4 cores isn't benefiting the games i'm playing *today*, and if I don't do video processing 90% of the time...i'd choose 4Ghz bragging rights over quad core :)

given e8400 is hard to find, i'd actually consider the q6600. those babies can give you 3.6Ghz on decent air cooling, so you'll have the 4 cores so you can cover that 10%.
Thats one way to look at it, but IMHO no game out today is remotly limited by the CPU for even a mid range CPU as opposed to the graphics card which has a huge impact on results. CPU will make a difference but it's not the make or brake piece of hardware. For that reason I would go quad, either Q9450 or Q6600 as they will still work great in the games you play now and in the future should scale better if you dont plan to upgrade the CPU anytime soon. I think in the long run you gain more from the 4 cores than the two faster ones even if it won't be an immediate payoff. Hell, I'd put my house on it that your games will run at whatever your graphics card can take and that any of the Quads will blitz in performance even if it's not a native quad game.
 

HenryBravo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
357
Q6600 for $200 at Microcenter and OC to 3.6. I would consider the E8400 a good deal when it's selling for MSRP, but with the mark-ups we're seeing, it's getting less and less attractive.
Yes the q6600 is a great deal, especially being a quad core. But I don't think reaching 3.6 ghz on the q6600 is as common or easy as reaching 4 ghz on the e8400. I was just saying that for raw speed the e8400 is still a good deal at $300. And people seem to forget that, clock for clock, the new Intel CPU's are faster than the last gen. The new CPU's running at 3.6 are faster than their older counterparts clocked at the same speed.

HB
 

gwai lo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
1,690
Doesn't the Q9450 have a multiplier of 8?
Doesn't that make it, umm, useless?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not completely useless, just somewhat harder to overclock. :p The board memory controllers and RAM will probably run into a wall before the chips run out of overclocking headroom =/
 

0100

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
341
Doesn't the Q9450 have a multiplier of 8?
Doesn't that make it, umm, useless?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wrong and you will see in the coming months.

The Q9450 is a true quad core and I would bet the farm an OC q6600 vs OC q9450 in a video editing battle.lol The Q9450 will win.
 

Buntz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
375
Wait another month at the most after the 9450 come out and you will see most of the price gouging on the 8400 end. Then buy the 8400
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,958
Wrong and you will see in the coming months.

The Q9450 is a true quad core and I would bet the farm an OC q6600 vs OC q9450 in a video editing battle.lol The Q9450 will win.

You must not understand how overclocking works with FSBs and multipliers, eh? Intel really screwed folks on the 45nm Q procs with the low multis - YOU will see in the coming months just how bad these WON'T OC. Me? I'll be getting an E8500, the most overclockable chip out of the whole 45nm lineup.
 

Urraca

Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2002
Messages
806
the e8400 are really overpriced right now so i discourage you from buying them.

Glad I caught the early train. But, if you think the q9450s are going to be cheap, you're out of your mind. $400+ easy. 100 bucks more per core heh.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
632
i read the review someone posted on this thread about q6600 vs q9400. Q6600 is the big winner in terms of overclocking/speed. Q9400 is only good for lower power consumption. I suppose that gives a user the option of being a power user (q6600) or a power saver (q9400). Can't have it both ways!
 

itzhobbes

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
126
$300 for a E8400!?. Didn't anyone else get them for $189 at Microcenter when it was first released? How much can a used E8400, never over-clocked and I have the original box, wrappng and HSF, go for?
 

sofarfrome

Gawd
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
798
Not completely useless, just somewhat harder to overclock. :p The board memory controllers and RAM will probably run into a wall before the chips run out of overclocking headroom =/

People in Europe that already have the chips are saying 478FSB will be a blessing and many are not getting to 450FSB.
 

UtopiA

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
3,509
Wrong and you will see in the coming months.

The Q9450 is a true quad core and I would bet the farm an OC q6600 vs OC q9450 in a video editing battle.lol The Q9450 will win.
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/prod...bmJLK,bGNkbZiUmJLK,bGRkaJiXmJTK,bGRkZZiWmJbK/
Q6600 at 2.4 vs Q9450 at 2.6

The multiplier will limit your OC (and overall performance) more than the improvements will boost your speed. The most a DDR2-800 user (like me) would get out of a Q9450 is 8x400 which is 3.2 GHz, without OCing memory. And how much does the Q9450 cost again?

Considering the price drops for 65nm on the way, you could pick up a Q6600 + TRUE + 120mm Fan for the same price as the Q9450. Then you could OC higher than the Q9450 and get even better performance.

So, why buy a native Quad again?
Stick with the E8400, at least you get a good multiplier.

Also I think no matter how good the CPU is, the Q9450 is going to be limited in OCing. Ignoring performance (we can only guess right now, anyway) the Q9450 will simply not reach the same clocks as the Q6600.
It's not possible.
 

RayDaddy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
1,537
so i guess e8400 is not available anywhere now? wold like to get one. that $189 sounded pretty good. maybe i;'ll find one :)
 
Top