q6600 vs q9450

A

ASIA911

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,053
q6600 vs q9450

If you already have the Q6600, I don't think it's even worth the upgrade. Just going to have to wait and see the OC version. The only thing that's totally worthy about the q9450 would be a nice drop in core temp.
 
they need a test to see how many of a certain VSTi instrument or effect can run before the ASIO driver poops out from cpu overload.

from past experience the 12meg cache ought to make quite a big difference for multi threaded and multi plugin music apps.
 
Q9450: hi 65nm dude, have you noticed that I have a lower core temps & lower voltage than you?
Q6600: well kid, my 9 multi fixed this so enjoy your 8 multi
Q9450: ya ya ya, anyway I stock @ 2667 and you stock @ 2400 so don’t be so happy about that stupid multi
Q6600: again kido, my multiplier will fix that stock speed when users starts OCing my a$$, not to mention that a DDR@800 is enough to make me hit 3600Mhz, people will start OCing there dims or search for faster dims when they want to take you’re a$$ above 3200Mhz
Q9450: I’ll be an amazing OCer
Q6600: remember kid, I’m the Q6600
Q9450: I have newer stepping, bigger cache, SMP, SSE4, …etc
Q6600: I AM MUCH CHEAPER, all what you have doesn’t worth the price difference
Q9450: people bought your B3 version @ $800, don’t blame me if I reached even $370
Paris Hilton: I like the Q6600….it’s hotter
Chuck Norris: I like the Q9450…its much dazzling
 
Well, comparing to this review of the Q9300:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html

The Q9300 beats the Q6600 in most tasks, with a slightly higher clock speed and Penryn optimisations - but there are some where the Q6600 wins, and these would probably be where the cache becomes a limitation. No music apps in there though. From that, it looks like the Q9300 will be better for most users despite its lower cache, unless you have very good cooling so that the multiplier is holding you back, or those cache-dependent programs.

Of course, Q9300/Q6600 is a different direction to Q6600/Q9450, and the differences could be exaggerated when it's the Penryn processor that has the larger cache.

I'll not be upgrading from my Q6600 though, regardless.. it's fine for my current purposes.
 
I don't know why people keep knocking the Q9450 in the battle against the Q6600. The Q9450 is faster clock for clock, has SSE4 and other optimizations, and runs cooler. Everyone keeps saying that the 8x multiplier is going to kill it, it's not. Q6600's top 24/7 usage is what, 3.6-3.8GHz or so? The Q9450 is going to do the same thing at 450-475x8 on P35's among other boards, not a big difference. Yah, it's true we're not going to have a monster 4.0GHz+ quad core without paying for the Q9550, but the Q9450 still is a good deal. The only place I can see its overclocking limitations coming through is under extreme cooling and benchmarking, but how many people run phase? :p
 
Mr. K6 said:
I don't know why people keep knocking the Q9450 in the battle against the Q6600. The Q9450 is faster clock for clock, has SSE4 and other optimizations, and runs cooler. Everyone keeps saying that the 8x multiplier is going to kill it, it's not. Q6600's top 24/7 usage is what, 3.6-3.8GHz or so? The Q9450 is going to do the same thing at 450-475x8 on P35's among other boards, not a big difference. Yah, it's true we're not going to have a monster 4.0GHz+ quad core without paying for the Q9550, but the Q9450 still is a good deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, according to the Xbitlabs review a Q9300 @ 3.5GHz would be in the ballpark of a 3.7GHz Q6600. These two chips should be compared directly, since they are the same price as well. In that case, I'd give the edge to the Q9300 due to its lower power consumption.

The Q9450, with 2x the cache and a higher 8x multi, should be capable of beating Q9300 by a fair amount. It'll probably max out somewhere around 3.8GHz, which is definitely a class above your typical Q6600 @ 3.6GHz.
 
just to clear things up….I mentioned that I’m waiting the Q9450 more than 1000 times in this forum, and I’ve been waiting it since Intel first announced the 32nm processors
so my previous post was just a way to mention all the stuff circling around both chips though it sounded like I prefer the Q6600
Well, comparing to this review of the Q9300:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html
Click to expand...
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK YOUUUUUUUUUU, now i know for sure that Q9450 will mop the floor with all these chips
I just hope the Rampage Formula will be available when the Q9450 arrives
 
I'm just saying is that if you already have the Q6600, it's not worth the upgrade. But if you're new to the quad squad, you probably better off getting the Q9450 IMO.
 
Mr. K6 said:
I don't know why people keep knocking the Q9450 in the battle against the Q6600. The Q9450 is faster clock for clock, has SSE4 and other optimizations, and runs cooler. Everyone keeps saying that the 8x multiplier is going to kill it, it's not. Q6600's top 24/7 usage is what, 3.6-3.8GHz or so? The Q9450 is going to do the same thing at 450-475x8 on P35's among other boards, not a big difference. Yah, it's true we're not going to have a monster 4.0GHz+ quad core without paying for the Q9550, but the Q9450 still is a good deal. The only place I can see its overclocking limitations coming through is under extreme cooling and benchmarking, but how many people run phase? :p
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 8X500 be pretty easy to get 4.0GHZ? I mean if the guys over on extreme forums, overclockers club etc etc can hit FSB 600+ with extreme cooling, surely we could get 500-525 easily on water and/or air.

I haven't done any research on it yet because I'm waiting on the 9450 to see what else is available at that time motherboard wise. But I'm sure someone will chime in with a detailed answer on the FSB issue.

I'll be looking for a motherboard with a lifetime warranty that can hit about 525FSB without too many heat problems. No SLI this time for me, just not worth it IMO.
 
baleedit said:
Wouldn't 8X500 be pretty easy to get 4.0GHZ? I mean if the guys over on extreme forums, overclockers club etc etc can hit FSB 600+ with extreme cooling, surely we could get 500-525 easily on water and/or air.

I haven't done any research on it yet because I'm waiting on the 9450 to see what else is available at that time motherboard wise. But I'm sure someone will chime in with a detailed answer on the FSB issue.

I'll be looking for a motherboard with a lifetime warranty that can hit about 525FSB without too many heat problems. No SLI this time for me, just not worth it IMO.
Click to expand...

Those insane FSB are with dual cores, quads don't clock up nearly as high. In fact around 475FSB is where most P35/X38 mobos top out with quads, so with a Q9450 you're realistically looking at 3.7 - 3.8GHz tops.
 
I think this will be my CPU of choice when I do my new build here shortly.
 
harpoon said:
Those insane FSB are with dual cores, quads don't clock up nearly as high. In fact around 475FSB is where most P35/X38 mobos top out with quads, so with a Q9450 you're realistically looking at 3.7 - 3.8GHz tops.
Click to expand...

So the 780i SLI was officially announced by EVGA that it would be able to hit 500FSB, give or take a few. So you're saying it won't do it with a quad, only a dual core. Anyone disagree?

If so, I might just wait even longer to upgrade. I was really hoping for at least a 4Ghz quad.
 
harpoon said:
Those insane FSB are with dual cores, quads don't clock up nearly as high. In fact around 475FSB is where most P35/X38 mobos top out with quads, so with a Q9450 you're realistically looking at 3.7 - 3.8GHz tops.
Click to expand...

Thats plenty of speed from me. I looked at an XS thread and they had the 6600 and 9450 at the same clock (3.7-3.8) and the PWMs were pumping out 100+A for the 6600 and 60A for the 9450. I pay my own power bills and that makes a huge difference to me - I'll be happy to move to a quad to speed up handbrake encodes, but I dont want my power bill to go up $50/mo. I'll be plenty happy with 3.4-3.6.
 
I'm looking to build a system with the Q9450 once it is released. As per the below review, it seems the Gigabyte X48-DQ6 can reach 545 FSB when using an QX6700. This motherboard also supports DDR2-1200Mhz memory, so you could go even higher then 800/Mhz/1066Mhz memory if needed. So shouldn't you be able to reach near 545 FSB with the Q9450 as well when using the Gigabyte X-48-DQ6?

In our overclocking tests we did a double whammy but for reality sakes we only included one set of overclocking results in our tests. We tested the board using the DES both enabled and disabled. With DES enabled our overclocking limited us to just over 502MHz FSB; this is where we found instabilities when the CPU wanted to rush to full speed, the voltages just weren%u2019t stable enough to handle this with the DES enabled. Running with the DES system disabled we managed to get 545MHz out of the board which was a lot better than our X38-DQ6 using DDR2 memory. It seems Intel has done a good job picking these chipsets from the batches.

Important Editor Note: Our maximum overclocking result is the best result we managed in our limited time of testing the motherboard. Due to time constraints we weren’t able to tweak the motherboard to the absolute maximum and find the highest possible FSB, as this could take days to find properly. We do however spend at least a few hours overclocking every motherboard to try and find the highest possible overclock in that time frame. You may or may not be able to overclock higher if you spend more time tweaking, or as new BIOS updates are released. “Burn-in” time might also come into play if you believe in that.
Click to expand...

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1271/5/page_5_bios_and_overclocking/index.html
 
that’s interesting, I just hope Q9450 FSB wall will be higher than 470Mhz cuz I saw (@XS) some review about the Q9450 (engineering sample) and the guy concluded that the Q9450 FSB wall is about 470Mhz
I also hope the Gigabyte X-48-DQ6 and the Asus Rampage Formula will be available when the Q9450 arrive and more reviews on the combination of these boards with this chip will be made so we can decide what’s the best choice
aaand why not some 2X2GB DDR2@1000+ kit other than the G.Skill@1000 :D

PaHick said:
firas mom: get your butt off the computer and take out the trash!

:D
Click to expand...

all my family are living back in my home country, and I’m living in a whole different country so no one can tell me that except my manager at work :D

btw, I think the price difference between the Q6600 and the Q9450 is about 30% more for the Q9450, can we expect at least 20% increase of general performance? or this is far from the Q9450 unless the bench method took full advantage from the Q9450 cache
 
OK.. I have a chance to buy a Q9450 or a Q6600 (G0).

Since I own a Vapochill LS phase change unit, the quad that I buy will be running at atleast -34c. So, heat isn't a problem. Which processor do I get? I own a Q6600 and have it at a 500FSB.. So, the Q6600's are MORE than capable.

512FSB-1.jpg



Mathmatically, if I was able to hit a 500FSB on phase, 9 x 500 = 4.5ghz. It may or may not be exactly THAT high, but it could get atleast 4.0ghz - 4.25ghz.

The Q9450 runs cooler but thats not really a HUGE concern for me. My issue is the FSB limitations of the 45nm quads along with their lower multipliers. Even the Q9550 would be a lower multiplier (by .5) but IMO, I could buy TWO Q6600's and still have money left over for the price of just ONE Q9550. I understand the 45nm quads offer a new set of instructions but its still only hitting 475 - 480 FSB MAX (and thats a cherry processor hitting those speeds).

Any input?
 
As 45nm processors evolve, I think that you'll see a migration of overclockers away from extreme cooling solutions. The newer processors are less tolerant to voltage than their older siblings, making extreme voltages much more dangerous and making the newer processors more succeptible to electro migration. Additionally, the newer processors run cooler, thus nagating the need for extreme cooling.

I'm sure a Q9450 is a kick ass processor, however if it's limited to roughly the same speed of a Q6600, one has to ask themself whether or not its worth the $150+ price premium.
 
I booted with 3.6ghz with my B3 but I was not able to mark a 3dmark06 score because it would fart out on the cpu tests.
 
Sagan said:
I booted with 3.6ghz with my B3 but I was not able to mark a 3dmark06 score because it would fart out on the cpu tests.
Click to expand...

I've booted with as high as 3.8 with my b3, but I can't get it 48h prime stable above 3.2.
 
48 hrs prime? uh... thats good but since when do you use your pc for 48 hours? I guess if you leave it one all the time...? I run prime for 6, as thats gonna be the longest I'm ever on at once.

sorry for de-rail, now back on topic (doesn't matter anyways)
 
toddw said:
48 hrs prime? uh... thats good but since when do you use your pc for 48 hours? I guess if you leave it one all the time...? I run prime for 6, as thats gonna be the longest I'm ever on at once.

sorry for de-rail, now back on topic (doesn't matter anyways)
Click to expand...

folding
 
firas said:
Q9450: hi 65nm dude, have you noticed that I have a lower core temps & lower voltage than you?
Q6600: well kid, my 9 multi fixed this so enjoy your 8 multi
Q9450: ya ya ya, anyway I stock @ 2667 and you stock @ 2400 so don’t be so happy about that stupid multi
Q6600: again kido, my multiplier will fix that stock speed when users starts OCing my a$$, not to mention that a DDR@800 is enough to make me hit 3600Mhz, people will start OCing there dims or search for faster dims when they want to take you’re a$$ above 3200Mhz
Q9450: I’ll be an amazing OCer
Q6600: remember kid, I’m the Q6600
Q9450: I have newer stepping, bigger cache, SMP, SSE4, …etc
Q6600: I AM MUCH CHEAPER, all what you have doesn’t worth the price difference
Q9450: people bought your B3 version @ $800, don’t blame me if I reached even $370
Paris Hilton: I like the Q6600….it’s hotter
Chuck Norris: I like the Q9450…its much dazzling
Click to expand...

You spent too much time at the Woot Off :p


 
zmjone2992 said:
I've booted with as high as 3.8 with my b3, but I can't get it 48h prime stable above 3.2.
Click to expand...

I got BSOD a couple of times on 3.4ghz but I've been runnin at 3.33ghz for the last 3 months stable. I've never tried 3.8ghz, I might next weekend and see.
 
Sagan said:
I got BSOD a couple of times on 3.4ghz but I've been runnin at 3.33ghz for the last 3 months stable. I've never tried 3.8ghz, I might next weekend and see.
Click to expand...

I had to pump the voltage up to 1.57v to get it to do that. So it probably wasn't a great idea.
 
I threw 1.6v at one of my quads when it was on a phase change setup.. I was limited by the board. Now that I have my Asus P5K-E coming, those boards are KNOWN to overclock quads to 500+ FSB speeds.. I will see how stable I can get my new Q6600 (G0) under my Vapochill.. I'm already anticipating roughly 4.3-ish ghz.


DSCN8979.jpg
 
why does every1 seem to forget that a q9450 will be faster than a q6600 if they are at the same clock?
 
I use both 6600 and 9450 chips and fold. A 9450 running stock speeds will complete a unit in the same amount of time as a 6600 clocked to 3ghz. Just my two cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top