Q6600 or Q9400?

R

rjolin01

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
1,399
Just want some opinions on which processor to use as my main gaming rig.
A Q6600 (G0) or a Q9400 (ES)
I have watercooling of the cpu only and my motherboard is a eVga 750i FTW. I plan on doing some playing around with overclocking, but I am not the most experienced. I know that the Q6600 has higher multiplier but the Q9400 has higher FSB.
 
stevedave said:
Q6600 will be faster after overclock.
Click to expand...
Not only that; the Q6600 G0s are known to be very good for overclocking. And you get more cache. However, due to 45nm processing, the Q9400 might overclock even better. If it were a Q9450, I'd say go with that but in this case? With watercooling, I'd stick to the Q6600 and overclock the hell out of it ;)
 
The Q9400 is a better chip. Aside from a small cache deficiency, it's faster clock for clock compared to the Q6600, has SSE4.1, and will overclock better while using less power.
 
I am starting to think that these two chips are basiclly the same in pros and cons....where one lacks the other doesnt. I guess its just more which I want to play with.
 
Don't ya just hate it when you answer your own question? What are the prices for the 2 cpus? I have a Q6600 @ 3.3. Not having much luck getting higher.

I'm considering a Q9550 because I'd like to get to 3.8 - 4.0. If you live near a Microcenter, they have the Q9550 on sale for $159. Just a thought.
 
rjolin01 said:
I am starting to think that these two chips are basiclly the same in pros and cons....where one lacks the other doesnt. I guess its just more which I want to play with.
Click to expand...
The only "pro" that the Q6600 has is slightly more cache, which will make no difference in most situations. The Q9400 is a better CPU in every other aspect. It performs better clock for clock, overclocks better, has SSE4.1, and is more power-efficient.
 
Zero82z said:
The only "pro" that the Q6600 has is slightly more cache, which will make no difference in most situations. The Q9400 is a better CPU in every other aspect. It performs better clock for clock, overclocks better, has SSE4.1, and is more power-efficient.
Click to expand...

Q6600 has 9x multi while Q9400 is 8x which can be a factor if hes going for a heavy OC.
 
the Q6600 could also have better compatibility for the 750 board, I know mine does but I have a asus not evga.
 
well i have gotten the Q6600 up to 3.6 on my watercooled set up but my brother has gotten the Q9400 up to 3.89 on air. So I am thinking maybe I should try the Q9400 on my watercooled setup and see if I can get 4-4.2. If this is the case I am sure the lower cache would not be factor. Am I correct in assuming this? Like I said before I am no ocing pro.
 
rjolin01 said:
Am I correct in assuming this?
Click to expand...
The lower cache most likely won't be a factor even if the Q9400 is running at the same speed as the Q6600. Like I explained twice already, the Q9400 has other advantages that make up for its deficiency in that aspect.
 
It will be a little tuff to get 4.0 on a q9400....like you said, you arent a oc pro.
 
thanks everyone for your input. i think i am going to go with the Q9400 as my main rig and Q6600 as secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top