Q6600 vs. Q9300

K

known12345

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
311
According to Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4547&Itemid=1) the Q9300 will cost around $270. I was wondering, is it better to just wait for it to come out, or purchased a Q6600? Actually on Thanksgiving I got a Q6600 + some motherboard for about $200. Should I just return the Q6600 and wait for the Q9300 or is the Q6600 for $200 well worth it? Im also not building my comp until last week of December (going home).

Also, can someone please direct me to a link or please provide me with the main difference between the Q6600 and the Q9300. I heard the new series is more efficient and uses less power/generates less heat, but is that it (I suppose they will be easier to overclock but I dont' think I'll be overclocking that much).
 
Keep in mind the Q9300 only has 6Mb L2 cache instead of 12Mb L2 cache like the Q9450 ($316).

The most significant difference between the Q6600 and Q9300/Q9450 is SSE4. The new chips have it and the Q6600 doesn't. SSE4 significantly improves media encoding performance, so if you expect to do a lot of encoding with DIVX, AVC, or WM9, then you should seriously consider sending that Q6600 back.
 
Remember that it only has a 7.5X multi, meaning that you need high frequency RAM and a FSB capable mobo to bring it to its full potential.
 
At the same clock rate It seems that the q6600 would be the faster chip due to its larger cashe. To get the Q9300 to be running at 3.6ghz you will need to get the FSB to 480mhz and have more expensive ram to get there. So while the Q9300 will clock higher the Q6600 would still be a better deal.
 
IMHO, a more fair comparaison would be between a Q6600 and a Q9450 but then the price will be the deciding factor then.

 
CoW]8(0);1031755297 said:
Disagree, Q6600. SSE4 won't be useful until software makes it useful.

Q9300's 7.5x multiplier will get you some very disappointed overclocks.
Click to expand...



Have you tried using one then,and overclocking it ? :confused: Not to argue,just curious if you,or anyone else has seen any real hard evidence.

There is a computer store here locally that has a Q9300 on display,on air,and its running at 3.54Ghz on the same motherboard I am using now with low volts,with Crucial DDR2 800 Baliistix ram (65$ bucks for 2x1) Its running UT3 benchmarks quite well.This with a unlapped Tuniq.

My board can go higher then 470 by a fair margin with stability.So whenever I see these types of comments it at least makes me pause.
 
Sell me that Q6600 for what you paid and get the Q9300. I need a new CPU more than you need a lesser CPU. :/ We both win.

Manny Calavera said:
Have you tried using one then,and overclocking it ? :confused: Not to argue,just curious if you,or anyone else has seen any real hard evidence.
Click to expand...
Its not a question of the chip, its the mobo. The 9450 is going to require 500Mhz FSB to hit the 4.0 Mark. That seems high, no? 4.0 is likely for any yorkfield if your board can do the FSB required, THUS a lower mult limits what you can accomplish.
Manny Calavera said:
There is a computer store here locally that has a Q9300 on display
Click to expand...
Um...the Q9300 isn't scheduled for release for more than a month. Where did they get it, and tell them to send me a catalog so I can buy one.

More likely you are thinking of an e4300. Not quite the same thing.
 
I want to bring this thread back from the dead, I am getting ready to build a new rig and I was 100% sold and then I read this Intel Desktop CPUs Price Cut Schedule which shows the Q9300 being released in about 2 days for the same price as the Q6600...
So what do I do?
I want to get one of the chips up to 3.3ghz on air, with the Abit IP-35 Pro board. Which chip should I go with, buy the Q6600 now or wait 2 days and get a Q9300?
 
Wait and see if they are actually coming out in 2 days (HERE IS TO HOPING) and go from there. I personally will be waiting to see how well the new chips OC compared to the old and making my decision based upon that. It is only 2 days so just sit tight haha.
 
I think the Q6600 is still the choice for the true overclocker. the higher multiplier will allow for less stress to ram and FSB when overclocking. However the Q9300 is what I'm going to get for a friend I'm building a system for. The reason behind it is I will be setting up a mild overclock for him and then forgetting about it. Cooling will be lower high end cooling. The board is known to be able to reach the 440. If not He is willing to accept lower than that. Basically I see the Q9300 as an option for the casual overclocker. I await the Q9300 greatly....because it is forcing the price drop of the Q6600...:p
 
CoW]8(0);1031755297 said:
Disagree, Q6600. SSE4 won't be useful until software makes it useful.

Q9300's 7.5x multiplier will get you some very disappointed overclocks.
Click to expand...

it's still faster per clock though 433*7.5(3250) shouldn't be THAT hard and it would still be on par to a 3.6Ghz conroe.when you take the 5-10% performance/clock advantage into account. Also lower power usage.

Only do it if you can do so at no real cost however.

I am personally waiting until I can get a 8.5 or 9x multi 45nm c2q for around $200(hoping q4 or q1-09) I'm not ditching all of my DDR2 and my boards just for nehalem
 
xlink said:
it's still faster per clock though 433*7.5(3250) shouldn't be THAT hard and it would still be on par to a 3.6Ghz conroe.when you take the 5-10% performance/clock advantage into account. Also lower power usage.

Only do it if you can do so at no real cost however.

I am personally waiting until I can get a 8.5 or 9x multi 45nm c2q for around $200(hoping q4 or q1-09) I'm not ditching all of my DDR2 and my boards just for nehalem
Click to expand...

Although Penryn has some IPC improvement, we don't know how much of this comes from the extra cache on the 12MB models. The Q6600 has a 2MB cache advantage, so I will be very interested to see if the 6MB quads like the 9300 are really faster clock for clock.
 
I can't wait to see some real-world tests on this, instead of the engineering builds that have been tested.

I am only looking for a moderate OC to 3.0ghz on Air on either of these two proc's, I can't wait to see a side-by-side comparison to see how they compare both OC'ed to 3ghz.
 
do you think what i think. the core 2 duos are excellent, you can just about do everything you want with these c2ds. i just think the q6600 is plenty enough power for a very more time ahead. sorry amd, r.i.p..
 
GLSauron said:
Sell me that Q6600 for what you paid and get the Q9300. I need a new CPU more than you need a lesser CPU. :/ We both win.


Its not a question of the chip, its the mobo. The 9450 is going to require 500Mhz FSB to hit the 4.0 Mark. That seems high, no? 4.0 is likely for any yorkfield if your board can do the FSB required, THUS a lower mult limits what you can accomplish.

Um...the Q9300 isn't scheduled for release for more than a month. Where did they get it, and tell them to send me a catalog so I can buy one.

More likely you are thinking of an e4300. Not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...




I have been able to confirm that its an ES chip.
 
ES = Engineering Sample. These are the chips that among other things, make the rounds between review sites and magazines. Many believe they are hand selected from Intel as good over clockers.
 
personally right now i'm trying to decide whether to go for a Q6600 or a Q9450 ?
 
If you are going for a high over clock, a G0 Q6600 will give you more headroom. If you want 3.6ghz or less, the Q9450 should accommodate you easily. However, you will have to wait several months to get the chip, and it will be $100 more than a Q6600 at retail when launched.

My personal belief is that the G0 Q6600 is the better chip from a price / performance ration, unless you want to minimize on power consumption and/or after market cooling.
 
thanks, i don't really plan on any OC. i use my pc for music production so i'll use a fair amount of ram and cpu, i feel the Q6600 should be able to handle it quite well and i don't think the price difference is worth it ?
 
Then the Q6600 is the chip for you. Even if you don't plan to OC, it pays to seek out a G0 stepping chip, as they run cooler and use less power. Clubit.com and Amazon guarantee G0 Stepping Q6600, although the chances of getting an older chip from Newegg or other major vendors is slim.
 
Markyip1 said:
Then the Q6600 is the chip for you. Even if you don't plan to OC, it pays to seek out a G0 stepping chip, as they run cooler and use less power.
Click to expand...
Yah, but I would assume the 45nm Q9300 would run cooler/less power then the Q6600?
 
BassKozz said:
Yah, but I would assume the 45nm Q9300 would run cooler/less power then the Q6600?
Click to expand...

True, but the lower multiplier of the 9300 (and the 9450 for that matter) will make it considerably harder to OC. A G0 Q6600 has a higher max OC head room than either the 9450 and 9300, and perhaps even the 9550.

Whether or not the two month wait and the extra $100 over a Q6600 is worth the benefits of runs cooler / uses less power, and/or the 10-15% performance benefit at the same speed, is another question. Each person has their own priorities.
 
CoW]8(0);1031755297 said:
Disagree, Q6600. SSE4 won't be useful until software makes it useful.

Q9300's 7.5x multiplier will get you some very disappointed overclocks.
Click to expand...

True and False. You are right about software making SSE4 usefull but most media encoding will improve by 50 percent. I can confirm that since I have ran these tests on a Penryn mobile and desktop CPU compared to the merom CPUs.
 
That is the same site that tried to prove a major improvement with Quads over Duals in Crysis.
 
amx said:
True and False. You are right about software making SSE4 usefull but most media encoding will improve by 50 percent. I can confirm that since I have ran these tests on a Penryn mobile and desktop CPU compared to the merom CPUs.
Click to expand...
Of course, that depends on what encoding application you are using.

TMPEGEnc, DIVX 6.6 and VirtualDub now support SSE4. I believe that is it for now, although others are on the way.

16409.png


16410.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top