• 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.

Decisions, Decisions! (Which Quad?)

P

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
I've definitely had an Intel quad-core on my radar for a while now - unfortunately, they (and MicroCenter) have just made the decision more difficult - it's now a question of *which* quad.

The choice is between the Q8300 and Q9300 (the spread is $10 before tax). The motherboard will take either one, so that is not an issue.

Yes; the Q9300 has a higher clocking and more cache - however, I only have DDR2-800 RAM (3 GB, with a max of 4 GB) - will the slower RAM gimp the faster CPU?

Q8300 - http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0341725

Q9300 - http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0328258
 
I would go with the Q9300, since it is only 10 dollars more. More cache helps out.
 
Id probably go with the Q9300 cause it has more cache. I believe they may have just reduced the price on this by the way. I know the Q8300 has been this price for a while now.
 
That's a nice price break on the Q9300. I'd say go with the Q9300 for sure.

And your DD2-800 RAM is fine as it would run at 333 with the 1333FSB. FSB is the same for both of these two cpu's anyway.
 
I agree with most of the other replies. Between those two go for the Q9300. And as of now only get one if you absolutely need a new CPU right away.
 
Q9300 hands down. The extra cache is gonna come in handy and that DDR2 800 RAM will still let you hit 3Ghz with that CPU.
 
WStokes said:
Id probably go with the Q9300 cause it has more cache. I believe they may have just reduced the price on this by the way. I know the Q8300 has been this price for a while now.
Click to expand...

I posted the question after the cut in price (earlier today); that's what set off the alarums. (Note that the Q8400 is $50 more than the Q9300 now - how's that for nuts?). Actually, this is the third go-round for the Q8300 at this price - pre-Black Friday, Thanksgiving/BlackFriday, and now (it went briefly back to regular between cuts); however, I've never seen Q9300 retail this cheap.
 
Nice find. I had been able to resist the Q8300 for $90, I may not be able to resist the Q9300 for $100. If it can delay a new build for another year or two and overclock to at least 3.0 GHz it is easily worth it for me. Now, will price/stock hold out until the weekend?
 
causticspill said:
Nice find. I had been able to resist the Q8300 for $90, I may not be able to resist the Q9300 for $100. If it can delay a new build for another year or two and overclock to at least 3.0 GHz it is easily worth it for me. Now, will price/stock hold out until the weekend?
Click to expand...

I just took a qick peek at Fairfax, VA's showing inventory (still shows twenty-plus at midnight on the first day). Q8300 (remember; $10 less) shows fourteen. (Now I know why Q8400 remains the high-priced quad; they only have one in stock. Talk about active discouragement.)

If I get to go this week, I'll need to pick up some seatbelts for my computer desk-chair (remember, I'm upgrading from an E1200) - I'll likely need them.
 
My guess is that these won't fly off the shelfs like the 875K did. The Q8300, which is similar enough and a bit cheaper, is still around.
 
Q9300. Whenever I shop for CPUs, I find the point where the jump in price to the next CPU is too large to justify in relation to the performance. $10? I'd bridge that gap all day.
 
Furystrike said:
My guess is that these won't fly off the shelfs like the 875K did. The Q8300, which is similar enough and a bit cheaper, is still around.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by *fly*.

Still, a lot of folks that would have upgraded to a quad-core (or faster) likely already have (or have gone to 1366/1156) - Q8300 (and now Q9300) are chasing us holdouts. And as I pointed out, the price diff between the two is $10 (two extra value meals at Wendy's MickeyD's or KFC). Further, except for cache, the two CPUs are otherwise identical (both are Lynnfields based on a dual-Wolfdale 45nm die with 1333 MHz FSB (333 MHz x 4) and a major bin-jump from a Conroe-based dual-core, even C2D).

For me, the big interest drivers are development (specificaly, mobile app development - Android and WP7) and virtualization, not gaming. While none of that is especially cache-dependent, all of it is very much CPU-piggish (to an extent, more so than gaming).
 
They should go pretty quickly considering its only 10 bucks more than the 8300. Now if they had the 9450 with even more cache for around this price that would be unreal and would literally fly off the shelves.
 
They are almost the same chip, spend the $10 more for the extra 2MB cache 2.5GHz, 333 bus, 7.5 multiplier... 400 FSB is an easy 3GHz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top