• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

CPU dilema

Q

quadman78

n00b
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
26
I have just finished purchasing everything for my new build only to find out I have to wait what could end up being a month to get a Q9450....I hate waiting. It was already a large point of debate in my build, so now I'm questioning the decision again. The limited feedback there is on the Q9450 suggests that lesser models can outperform it in some areas. I will have everything else here by tuesday, so is it worth it to wait, or should I just get a 6600/6700/9300? Try to keep explanations simple because this is my first build and I'm learning slowly. Thanks
 
I'd say grab the always reliable Q6600 G0 stepping, bump the FSB (front side bus) to 1333 on that mobo, and get 25% more power/speed for free running it at 3 GHz and never look back. Verify it with various testing methods and software to make sure it's rock solid stable at that speed, and then nudge it up a little bit at a time - and I do mean a little bit at a time. It makes a most excellent learning 'chip' for overclocking because it handles that FSB bump so damned well, even on motherboards that don't really overclock well but do support the 1333 FSB natively.

The Q6600 is still a serious contender on many fronts, and most definitely the best bang for the buck as a quad at this point I'd say.
 
Thanks, just thought I'd add that I'm using the MSI P7N Diamond motherboard in case that makes a difference.
 
I agree with everything Joe said.

(I could re-write everything he typed in my own words, but there's no reason to make you read the same points twice).

If you weren't planning to OC ("scared to", "void warranty", etc) and you've got the extra cash, then the 45nm's might be worth it.
 
Nothing wrong with my system, but if I could do it over, I'd have gotten a E8400.

There is nothing, besides 3DMark, that I have gotten decent use out of my two extra cores.

Most software can't even use two cores, let alone four. IMO it's too early for quad core, unless you are a video/audio encoding freak - that is the *only* way I see it worth it.

I copy/burn a DVD maybe twice a month, a quad saves me about 5 mins each burn. Not really getting $150 worth of use out of the extra quad cost there...

If you must go quad, go Q6600. Even on Crysis, my setup is more than I need....

Don't get me wrong Q9450 is a killer chip, just not for the price/performance "bang for the buck". Maybe next year we will need it.... as it sits in my rig now (X3350 = Q9450) 90% of the other two cores are not used.
 
I'd recommend you consider getting an E8400 also, unless you use an app that really demands quad core.
 
I use all 4 cores every day on my q6600, 8GB.
I run two SMP instances of f@h and my normal work apps (Excel, Word, TrackIt, Act, AutoCad, etc.)

It's smooth as silk.
I also game on it occasionally, but I'm not a FPS guy so the Witcher is the most that taxes my 8800GT. (Total shit game BTW...buggiest crap that I've ever played)

Never have to shut down any apps...just run whatever I want and it's handled.
Quads rock.
 
I'd take q66. It's certainly the bang for buck nowadays, otherwise a q93 is newer, 45nm, runs cooler and w/ lower voltages but you'll need a good motherboard to OC this chip since it'll depend exclusively on the FSB you can get. Considering it, and the extra $ it costs, I recommend a Q6600 G0.
 
gustavompo said:
I'd take q66. It's certainly the bang for buck nowadays, otherwise a q93 is newer, 45nm, runs cooler and w/ lower voltages but you'll need a good motherboard to OC this chip since it'll depend exclusively on the FSB you can get. Considering it, and the extra $ it costs, I recommend a Q6600 G0.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
toddw said:
Nothing wrong with my system, but if I could do it over, I'd have gotten a E8400.

There is nothing, besides 3DMark, that I have gotten decent use out of my two extra cores.

Most software can't even use two cores, let alone four. IMO it's too early for quad core, unless you are a video/audio encoding freak - that is the *only* way I see it worth it.

I copy/burn a DVD maybe twice a month, a quad saves me about 5 mins each burn. Not really getting $150 worth of use out of the extra quad cost there...

If you must go quad, go Q6600. Even on Crysis, my setup is more than I need....

Don't get me wrong Q9450 is a killer chip, just not for the price/performance "bang for the buck". Maybe next year we will need it.... as it sits in my rig now (X3350 = Q9450) 90% of the other two cores are not used.
Click to expand...

What about rts?
 
What is the G0 you guys have after the 6600? Is it a specific model? I don't see that spec on any websites...
 
toddw said:
Nothing wrong with my system, but if I could do it over, I'd have gotten a E8400.

There is nothing, besides 3DMark, that I have gotten decent use out of my two extra cores.

Most software can't even use two cores, let alone four. IMO it's too early for quad core, unless you are a video/audio encoding freak - that is the *only* way I see it worth it.

I copy/burn a DVD maybe twice a month, a quad saves me about 5 mins each burn. Not really getting $150 worth of use out of the extra quad cost there...

If you must go quad, go Q6600. Even on Crysis, my setup is more than I need....

Don't get me wrong Q9450 is a killer chip, just not for the price/performance "bang for the buck". Maybe next year we will need it.... as it sits in my rig now (X3350 = Q9450) 90% of the other two cores are not used.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point though. You may not use it now but you will in the future. Since I'm going to give a year and a half before programs become massively multithreaded by nature, I'd keep it to a quad. Besides, if you're getting a new computer in a year and a half anyway, you have money to blow on the "small" performance gain now.
 
that future crap you guys talk about doesn't make sense ... computer hardware and futur doesn't pair ..

if he will use it in the future , why not wait untill it get's cheaper in the future and buy it ?

same happend with dual over single core ... " now you won't use it , but you will in the future"

now we're not even in the future of dual core , let alone future for the quad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top