Diff beteeeen i7 920 and Q9300

LordBritish

LordBritish

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
2,062
My CPU is currently an Opteron 165 and I think it's getting close to the time I need to upgrade - lol.

I was looking at the i7 920 and the Q9300 CPUs.

Can somebody tell me what the difference is?

Which one would you get?

I also see that's there's a Q6700 Kentsfield (2.66Ghz) as well.

So confusing.
 
Q9300 is basically a lowend 45nm Quad... it has 6mb of cache ... should perform on par with a Q6600
Q6700 is a 65nm Quad, 8mb of cache... older architecture
i7 920 45nm Nahlem Quad... this would be the best choice, should be around 25% clock for clock against the Q6700 and u can OC it quite good it seems

No point in going older tech now
 
Brownstone said:
No point in going older tech now
Click to expand...
Depends on budget. i7 has quite a price premium with it + ddr3 + x58 mobo.

The best price/performance ratio I think is still Qxxxx + ~4gb ddr2 + P45.

Q6600 class processor is still plenty for most anyone I can imagine for some time still to come. But then again, the OP didn't really going into detail concerning what he uses his system for.
 
I'd say Q6700 or i7 920, Q9300 is a low end one that not worth getting.
 
I intend to do mainly gaming on my new rig.

I want the system to last quite while - at least 1.5 years.

So, you think a Q6700 Kentsfield is my best bet as far as other related costs go ? (MB + mem)?
 
Brownstone said:
No point in going older tech now
Click to expand...

I just did a system upgrade and went with a Q9550. Why you may ask? I did not want a small sun sitting in my living room. Heat output may not be a concern for all but I'd rather go with a slightly slower system that I wasn't afraid would run WAY too hot. (although the Q9550 runs fairly hot, but not like the i7s can)
 
I had a Opteron 285 and I ended up upgrading to an Intel Q9550. For less than $500 (thanks to msft live.com cashback), I got the Q9550 + 6GB of PC6400 DDR2 + a ASUS P5Q Pro mobo + an Antec 650 80+ PS. Anyways my system now idles at around 100W (total system) and rarely goes over the 150W mark which is about where the Opteron system was at during idle. And performance is great. Compiles are at least 2X as fast.
 
Brownstone said:
No point in going older tech now
Click to expand...

I disagree. Now is a great time to buy up some Core2 stuff with DDR2. It's cheap now and still does VERY well. I have a Q9300 setup that I put together a month a go and I'm loving it. I am able to OC to 3Ghz at 1.032v.

Just like I did with the Core2 (if I even upgrade to the i7, I'll wait a year or two before buying. No point in paying a premium for something now when in 6 months, something FAR cheaper will outperform it.
 
yamahaSHO said:
I disagree. Now is a great time to buy up some Core2 stuff with DDR2. It's cheap now and still does VERY well.
Click to expand...

I was looking into the 920 when I bought the Q9550. The main reason for not getting the 920 was quality DDR3 is > 2X the price of quality DDR2. $50 US will get you 4GB of quality PC6400 DDR2. That coupled with the higher motherboard cost kept me away from a 920.

However, I did stay away from the older 65nm tech (perhaps this is what Brownstone was talking about) Q6600 and Q6700 ... because I wanted the lower power 45nm chips.
 
Jared701 said:
I just did a system upgrade and went with a Q9550. Why you may ask? I did not want a small sun sitting in my living room. Heat output may not be a concern for all but I'd rather go with a slightly slower system that I wasn't afraid would run WAY too hot. (although the Q9550 runs fairly hot, but not like the i7s can)
Click to expand...

There's only a 35w difference in heat, turn off a light and you'll save the same amount of heat output into the room.
If your only gaming and not video encoding and such then just save some money and go Q9550 route.
 
yamahaSHO said:
I disagree. Now is a great time to buy up some Core2 stuff with DDR2. It's cheap now and still does VERY well. I have a Q9300 setup that I put together a month a go and I'm loving it. I am able to OC to 3Ghz at 1.032v.

Just like I did with the Core2 (if I even upgrade to the i7, I'll wait a year or two before buying. No point in paying a premium for something now when in 6 months, something FAR cheaper will outperform it.
Click to expand...

I you really don't care about old or new, you could go Q6600, cost less and can hit higher clock easier when OC, more cache too.

For Q9550, I think it's the best C2Q you can buy at a reasonable price, with the whole system cost about $300 less than a i7 920 one, it's up to you wither it's worth it to upgrade to i7. In my case I thought 2200 for an i7 920 system sounds better than 1900 for a Q9550 system.
 
A very very basic answer would look like this:

i7 920 > Q9300 > Q6700 > Q6600
 
sskk said:
I you really don't care about old or new, you could go Q6600, cost less and can hit higher clock easier when OC, more cache too.

For Q9550, I think it's the best C2Q you can buy at a reasonable price, with the whole system cost about $300 less than a i7 920 one, it's up to you wither it's worth it to upgrade to i7. In my case I thought 2200 for an i7 920 system sounds better than 1900 for a Q9550 system.
Click to expand...
I used to buy all the new stuff when it came out, then regretted it as the price would keep me attached to it for much longer than I wanted and had I waited a few months, I would have gotten better for 1/4 of the cost. I built my current Q9300 setup for $350 (CPU, mobo, RAM, Ninja2) and I'll run it until the next generation starts really picking up. When I do this, I'll be shooting to build something in a similar price range.

I don't care about hitting really high OC's, so the Q6600 isn't for me. I don't care about getting the highest bench and I don't really stress the computer too much as I have more fun playing games on my Xbox. I've been able to OC the Q9300 to 3Ghz while undervolting.

This is just my personal preference. Some people have to have the latest and greatest. :)
 
Having gone from a q6600 at 3.6ghz to an i7 920, i love it. My i7 is only running at 3.2 right now and i get better performance without having to deal with an nvidia chipset. DDR3 memory is already on its way down, and x58 boards arent much more expensive than the current HIGH end 775 boards. What people keep forgetting is that i7 is not a mainstream platform. x58 is the highest of the high end desktop from intel right now. So comparing it to a p45 board which is a mainstream board is null and void.
 
PC_User said:
A very very basic answer would look like this:

i7 920 > Q9300 > Q6700 > Q6600
Click to expand...

Fail.

i7 920 > q6700 >q6600 >q9300

While the q9300 is "newer" technology, the other 2 overclock better and have more cache than a 9300. The Q6600 will out perform the Q9300 in everything, and is $75+ cheaper.
 
veedubfreak said:
Having gone from a q6600 at 3.6ghz to an i7 920, i love it. My i7 is only running at 3.2 right now and i get better performance without having to deal with an nvidia chipset. DDR3 memory is already on its way down, and x58 boards arent much more expensive than the current HIGH end 775 boards. What people keep forgetting is that i7 is not a mainstream platform. x58 is the highest of the high end desktop from intel right now. So comparing it to a p45 board which is a mainstream board is null and void.
Click to expand...

That is just silly.

A.) You say you like your i7 better because you dont have to deal with a nvidia chipset, Well I LOVE my q6600 (q9550 in the otw) and I HATE Nvidia motherboards. I run a p45 all day and it works fantastic. Your silly choice for using a nvidia platform.

B.) I have seen benchmark upon benchmark comparing the i7 920 to Q9550's (stock for stock) and in gaming and most real life benchmarks there is no great difference. The main differences are seen in synthetic benchmarks or encoding or things of that sort.

I don't blame you for loving your i7, and I think its fantastic that we have people like you out there willing to be the guinea pigs on this new hardware. However DDR3 is still much to expensive for performance that most of the time doesn't beat DDR2 (due to timings, even though they run at a higher bus) and the X58 doesn't offer ONE thing over the p45, so comparing them is unfair, you are right. Why pay double for nothing?
 
veedubfreak said:
Having gone from a q6600 at 3.6ghz to an i7 920, i love it. My i7 is only running at 3.2 right now and i get better performance without having to deal with an nvidia chipset. DDR3 memory is already on its way down, and x58 boards arent much more expensive than the current HIGH end 775 boards. What people keep forgetting is that i7 is not a mainstream platform. x58 is the highest of the high end desktop from intel right now. So comparing it to a p45 board which is a mainstream board is null and void.
Click to expand...

I just can't bring myself to completely leave the s775 / DDR2 scene for a very minimal improvement with the i7 / DDR3 setup. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind the upgrade but the cost to upgrade for me, would be rediculous. For grins, I can easily ramp up my Q6600 from my 24/7 O/C of 3.6ghz to 3.8ghz.. DDR2 is super low and chart after chart comparisons show only miminalistic gains on DDR3, over the high end DDR2 modules. (Sigh..... One day, i7, when your prices significantly drop.. I too, will jump on your bandwagon.. LOL).


cool8.jpg
 
crawlgsx said:
Fail.

i7 920 > q6700 >q6600 >q9300

While the q9300 is "newer" technology, the other 2 overclock better and have more cache than a 9300. The Q6600 will out perform the Q9300 in everything, and is $75+ cheaper.
Click to expand...

I agree with the original statement of i7 920>Q9300>Q6700>Q6600

Yes, they will OC better. However, clock for clock, the Q9300 is faster even with less cache. If you're not looking for a big OC, you can find a Q9300 for about the same price as a Q6600 and use less power.

Before I bought my Q9300, I considered the Q6600 but since I didn't want to do a massive OC just to get it to perform as well as the Q9300 at a slightly less OC, I opted for the one that used less power. Yeah, you can get the Q6600 to OC high enough that the Q9300 won't catch up due to the multiplier, but unless you're a 'bench racer', the gain is VERY minimal to nearly non-existant.
 
yamahaSHO said:
Yes, they will OC better. However, clock for clock, the Q9300 is faster even with less cache. If you're not looking for a big OC, you can find a Q9300 for about the same price as a Q6600 and use less power.
Click to expand...

Almost all of that is false.

Look anywhere, the q6600 is cheaper.

Show me ONE benchmark clock for clock that shows a Q9300 being faster.

As far as power goes, your talking about 10w lol.

Most G0 q6600's will actually use less power, IE: mine which has a VID of 1.225 and I can run it at stock if I were so inclined at less than 1.2V. I am not sure off the top of my head if that would be better (or enough to save the 10w) but regardless, It's such a small number it's almost irrelevant.
 
crawlgsx said:
Almost all of that is false.

Look anywhere, the q6600 is cheaper.

Show me ONE benchmark clock for clock that shows a Q9300 being faster.

As far as power goes, your talking about 10w lol.

Most G0 q6600's will actually use less power, IE: mine which has a VID of 1.225 and I can run it at stock if I were so inclined at less than 1.2V. I am not sure off the top of my head if that would be better (or enough to save the 10w) but regardless, It's such a small number it's almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Otay...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_4.html



My Q9300 VID is 1.125, I run it at 3Ghz at 1.032v. I'd say that is relevant and not false as the test quoted below shows about 30w difference; that is significant. If you can't find a Q9300 for a good price, keep searching. I got mine for WELL under $200.

xbitlabs said:
Conclusion
The new quad-core Core 2 Quad Q9300 processor priced at $266 should be at least as demanded as its predecessor, Core 2 Quad Q6600. Being Intel’s cheapest quad-core processor built using the latest production process, this newcomer has a number of indisputable advantages: high clock speed, increase bus frequency, SSE4.1 instruction support and a few other micro-architectural improvements. Even despite the reduced to 6MB L2 cache, all these features ensure a pretty noticeable performance improvement. According to our tests, the average performance advantage of Core 2 Quad Q9300 over Core 2 Quad Q6600 is about 7%. And what is especially pleasing, you will get this performance gain absolutely for free: Core 2 Quad Q9300 will be priced officially exactly as Core 2 Quad Q6600.

In addition I would like to say that the use of more advanced manufacturing technology helped reduce power consumption and heat dissipation of the new processor. Our practical experiments revealed that it consumes about 30W less when running in heavy burn mode.

However, besides indisputable advantages, this new processor has one significant drawback, which may make the overclocker future of this solution quite doubtful. Although Yorkfield processors can overclock up to 4GHz (without any extreme cooling solutions involved), Core 2 Quad Q9300 cannot reach that frequency. Since the new quad-core generation started supporting 1333MHz bus, their multipliers got considerably lower. For example, Core 2 Quad Q9300 we have discussed today works with 7.5x multiplier, which doesn’t allow this processor to get past 3.4-3.5GHz because contemporary mainboards have pretty limited functionality when it comes to increasing the FSB frequency past 460-470MHz by quad-core CPUs. And this is actually even lower than the maximum frequency quad core processors from the Kentsfield family, including Core 2 Quad Q6600, can reach.

As a result, Core 2 Quad Q6600 may remain a better choice for overclocker systems, because it may run faster than Core 2 Quad Q9300 in some cases. Moreover, overclocking of previous-generation quad-core processors is a simpler procedure that doesn’t depend that much on the mainboard functionality.

So, it turns out pretty hard to make the final conclusion about the youngest quad-core Yorkfield processor. The new Core 2 Quad Q9300 is definitely a great product, but only until you get to overclocking. From the overclocking prospective we have to be more careful with our verdict and would call it an interesting but maybe not the most optimal choice.

Also, do not forget that quad-core processors can still hardly be considered an indisputably best choice. The applications optimized for multi-core micro-architecture are not that numerous yet. Therefore, dual-core processors with higher clock frequencies seem to be a more optimal solution. Our tests showed that new Core 2 Duo E8000 processors can outperform Core 2 Quad Q9300 in a number of tasks in both: nominal and overclocked modes.
Click to expand...
 
yamahaSHO said:
I got mine for WELL under $200.
Click to expand...

In my search for a new cpu. I spent a probably 2 weeks bidding on cpus on eBay and I found that Q6600s can be had for $125 (used) with Q9300s a little more and Q9450 for $205 and Q9550s C1 stepping for $235 new with the E0 stepping commanding $25 extra. And over $400 for a Q9650. Well at least these were prices 3 weeks ago...
 
Price is always a factor in my book (especially considering you wont notice a difference in gaming) so the Q6600 takes the cake.

for me a good rule is always to spend more on GPU. A q6600 with a gtx 280 would game better than a i7 920 with a gtx 260 which would cost more.

you will get 1.5 years out of a q6600 easy, I plan on getting 2 years out of my slower Q8200. You might even be able to skip i7 which I will probably do.
 
30w is not relevant even if you want to go to that extreme. You could kill more than that by shutting off a light in your house.

Prices on the q6600 are $35-50 less, no matter how you look at it. And up to $75+ on most sites. Can you shop around and find a Q9300 sub $200, sure. You can also shop around and find a used Q6600 for ~$100.

The end all factor is simple, the Q6600 cost's less and will outperform the Q9300 overclocked. The q6600 also out peforms the Q9300 in most benchmarks clock for clock.

If you are ONLY interested in power saving, then you shouldn't get a quad core in the first place so IMO the 30w difference is just silly. Get a nice 65w Core 2 duo if you want to save power and underclock the hell out of it and jack the Vcore way down. If you want performance, get a Q6600 at minimum.

I personally have moved on from my Q6600 as my Q9550 comes in the mail tomorrow.
 
crawlgsx said:
30w is not relevant even if you want to go to that extreme. You could kill more than that by shutting off a light in your house.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. 30w is a pretty big number and is 30w less heat to cool. I don't know I can believe anything you post if you don't think 30w at full load isn't considerable. My computer probably pulls less than 200w from the wall at full load and you don't think that 30w is substantial? At 200 watts, that's 15% savings in power. People got excited when the Xbox shed off less than that after the Falcon revision.

Prices on the q6600 are $35-50 less, no matter how you look at it. And up to $75+ on most sites. Can you shop around and find a Q9300 sub $200, sure. You can also shop around and find a used Q6600 for ~$100.
Click to expand...

You're not looking hard enough. If you want to buy used, it's a different ball game. I don't buy used processors.

The end all factor is simple, the Q6600 cost's less and will outperform the Q9300 overclocked. The q6600 also out peforms the Q9300 in most benchmarks clock for clock.
Click to expand...

AFTER the FSB wall has been reached with the Q9300. The tests are out there... I'm not making it up.

If you are ONLY interested in power saving, then you shouldn't get a quad core in the first place so IMO the 30w difference is just silly. Get a nice 65w Core 2 duo if you want to save power and underclock the hell out of it and jack the Vcore way down. If you want performance, get a Q6600 at minimum.
Click to expand...

Obviously a quad will consume more power, however, I'm not looking to have a single or dual core anymore as it won't multi-task or encode the same. Trying to find a sweet spot for my needs is nothing YOU can argue about. As I've stated, I've already lowered the voltage core and retained performance. Again, clock for clock, the Q9300 is faster than the Q6600. If I wanted to OC to nearly 4Ghz, then the Q6600 would be the better option, however, I didn't want to do that. I've seen others take the Q9300 to 3.6Ghz. As that won't really help much with games, who cares, right? If I were ONLY interested in power savings, I wouldn't use a computer ;)

I personally have moved on from my Q6600 as my Q9550 comes in the mail tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I was looking at that chip to, until I realized that I upgrade too often to justify the cost.
 
I'm impressed that your system uses only 200w.

Again however I did not build my system for saving power, I built it for performance. The 4870 X2 alone takes more than your 200w system. Saving 30w to me personally means absolutely nothing. Like I said, I can shut I light off in my house and save more power than that. I also have 6 hard drives and 7 fans to power. Power is not my issue, nor was it the posters that I can tell.

I do believe it is YOU who is not looking hard enough if you think that the Q9300 can be had for the same price as the Q6600 (used or not).

I too upgrade too often so I fully respect your decision of not going with a Q9550. I wouldn't have except I sold my old Mobo/ram/case with my Q6600 and got more than enought to fund my new Q9550 so why not :).

Seriously though, this isn't a pissing contest. I am not trying to say you or I nesc. made a better purchase, we both have a great CPU and the circumstances may have been different. My only argument, from my research, shows that at THIS time the Q6600 is cheaper, almost anywhere you look, and will overclock better. If the original poster is looking for the best performance/$ it seems like a win-win to me.
 
crawlgsx said:
I'm impressed that your system uses only 200w.

Again however I did not build my system for saving power, I built it for performance. The 4870 X2 alone takes more than your 200w system. Saving 30w to me personally means absolutely nothing. Like I said, I can shut I light off in my house and save more power than that. I also have 6 hard drives and 7 fans to power. Power is not my issue, nor was it the posters that I can tell.
Click to expand...

I too have a performance computer, but I still use the power saving features when I'm not gaming. I have 4 computers in my house running all the time... that adds up. Lights are turned on and off througout the day, the computers stay on 100% of the time... so no, flipping off a light isn't the same unless you NEVER turn it on.

I do believe it is YOU who is not looking hard enough if you think that the Q9300 can be had for the same price as the Q6600 (used or not).
Click to expand...

No, I stand by what I said, keep reading...


Seriously though, this isn't a pissing contest. I am not trying to say you or I nesc. made a better purchase, we both have a great CPU and the circumstances may have been different. My only argument, from my research, shows that at THIS time the Q6600 is cheaper, almost anywhere you look, and will overclock better. If the original poster is looking for the best performance/$ it seems like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...

I got my Q9300 for $125 new almost 2 months ago... That is pretty much on par and the SLIGHTLY higher price warrants the extra performance unless you're going to OC up to 4Ghz. As I've said, this chip has been known to hit 3.6Ghz, which is what you show your Q6600 hitting. The Q9300 is faster at the same clock speed, so I'd say the minuet cost difference pretty much nulls it out.
 
I find the best power saving feature included in current computers is the power button. Not using it? Press the power button :) Although right now, mine is being used to keep my apt warm until they relight my pilot light.
 
On that note. In these parts (Pittsburgh PA, USA) heating is needed for nearly six months out of the year so my computers serve as heaters in the winter. I actually block off the registers and they provide most of the heat for the computer room.
 
veedubfreak said:
I find the best power saving feature included in current computers is the power button. Not using it? Press the power button :) Although right now, mine is being used to keep my apt warm until they relight my pilot light.
Click to expand...
It's easier for me to leave them on for access as I stream to and from all of them. Each computer is in a separate room and I'd rather not walk down 3 floors to turn one on.
 
Well you sir got a FANTASTIC price on your Q9300 and if you can point the poster to where to buy a BRAND new retail Q9300 for that price than I stand corrected and recommend the Q9300.

However, The best price I could find (new) was $220 before shipping, vs. $170 shipped for the Q6600 (quick search) and imo at that extra price it is not worth it unless you are concerned with your power usage.

I once again state that if power usage is important to you, then yes there is a reason not to go with a q6600, I am not arguing that. What I am saying is that the poster has not said such, and it is not important to me.

Regardless if you can link a Q9300 brand new for $125... WOW.
 
I think the i7 cores are awesome, but the prices of motherboards and ram that go with them are too expensive.

I'll get the i7 once Intel allows other chipsets other than the X58 to be used to run those damn chips ... their just so good but soooo expensive.
 
crawlgsx said:
Well you sir got a FANTASTIC price on your Q9300 and if you can point the poster to where to buy a BRAND new retail Q9300 for that price than I stand corrected and recommend the Q9300.

However, The best price I could find (new) was $220 before shipping, vs. $170 shipped for the Q6600 (quick search) and imo at that extra price it is not worth it unless you are concerned with your power usage.

I once again state that if power usage is important to you, then yes there is a reason not to go with a q6600, I am not arguing that. What I am saying is that the poster has not said such, and it is not important to me.

Regardless if you can link a Q9300 brand new for $125... WOW.
Click to expand...
Ebay... $180 + Live discount of 30%.
 
Cheapest one on ebay is $210 before shipping. I don't know what live discount is but 30% off is nice! Assuming you got that SAME 30% on a q6600 you would get the following price on current ebay auctions (new, buy it now as bidding is never certain)

Before shipping:

q9300 - $147

q6600 - $105

So if you get that 30% discount it does close the gap in price quite a bit vs. a retail site. If you hit the right new deal looks like you could even get the q9300 for $150 shipped (looking at previous auction) with that 30%. About $90-100 on the q6600.

Without that 30% as I doubt everyone gets it, the q9300 would be $210, the Q6600 would be $150.
 
At $210 you can get the Q9450. I ended bidding on 2 of them at $201 and the final price ended up being around $203 to $208. And this without a discount.

BTW, the 30% days look to be over its now only 8%. :(
 
crawlgsx said:
That is just silly.

A.) You say you like your i7 better because you dont have to deal with a nvidia chipset, Well I LOVE my q6600 (q9550 in the otw) and I HATE Nvidia motherboards. I run a p45 all day and it works fantastic. Your silly choice for using a nvidia platform.

B.) I have seen benchmark upon benchmark comparing the i7 920 to Q9550's (stock for stock) and in gaming and most real life benchmarks there is no great difference. The main differences are seen in synthetic benchmarks or encoding or things of that sort.

I don't blame you for loving your i7, and I think its fantastic that we have people like you out there willing to be the guinea pigs on this new hardware. However DDR3 is still much to expensive for performance that most of the time doesn't beat DDR2 (due to timings, even though they run at a higher bus) and the X58 doesn't offer ONE thing over the p45, so comparing them is unfair, you are right. Why pay double for nothing?
Click to expand...

One thing?

Tri-Channel memory?

Dual x16 PCI-e?


I love how you sound like Q9550 system is sooo much cheaper than i7 920 when in fact it cost a little more.

Double? where?

an I7 920 system cost about $300 more when you use a CHEAP P45 board for Q9550, go with high end P45, the gap is more like $200, if you go X48 with Q9550, the i7 920 setup will only cost $100 more or so.

Now how much does your SYSTEM cost?

A big problem with Q9550 is the CPU itself cost way too much, about $50 MORE than i7 920.
 
Do you read english? Never at ANY point was I arguing the cost or benefit of a q9550. This whole argument was q6600 vs q9300. I merely mentioned that I personally just upgraded to a q9550 from the q6600. And the cost to upgrade to a i7 would have been far past double as I already had the p45/memory/cooler/etc....

However that was never in discussion *shrug*.

The "benefits" you just mentioned are 100% worthless. Triple channel ddr3 doesn't perform any better than its lower timing DDR2 partner (at 1/3 of the cost).

dual x16 pcix was already here.
 
Just as a quick note, you ask what the i7 offers over a p45? SLI. Try running 2 260s on your superduperuber p45. Ya, wont happen? Silly for picking an nvidia chipset? Try running SLI on a non nvidia chipset 775 board. Stop comparing a "budget system" with a "high end system". An i7 and x58 and ddr3 is not a budget system. And in 6 months when the prices come down, i'll have had mine for 6 months, and to those of us who have good jobs, we enjoy being the guinea pigs.

Also, this is not the oftforums. We dont do budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top