• 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.

Q6700 or Q9450 ?

V

vanilla_guerilla

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
5,895
getting a new cpu, 1 of these 2, price doesnt matter. am i mistaken in thinking that the q9450's that have been around arent particularly good overclockers? my main goal is high clocks, i would like to hit 4ghz, which i have never done with a quad. 45nm doesnt matter much either because the 45nm cpu's i have owned all ran as hot as the 65nm. would the slightly different arch and extra l2 of the q9450 make up for lowish multi, extra cost, and iffy overclocks?
 
Q9700s top out at almost exactly the same place Q6600s do, they just do it at (slightly) lower FSB due to the (slightly) higher multiplier, and yes, the Q9450s haven't been amazing overclockers. Either the chips aren't as great for OCing as people had hoped, or BIOSes/motherboard designs have yet to catch up.

End result? You shouldn't bother with either.
 
silent-circuit said:
Q9700s top out at almost exactly the same place Q6600s do, they just do it at (slightly) lower FSB due to the (slightly) higher multiplier, and yes, the Q9450s haven't been amazing overclockers. Either the chips aren't as great for OCing as people had hoped, or BIOSes/motherboard designs have yet to catch up.

End result? You shouldn't bother with either.
Click to expand...
^ WTF?
 
You won't hit 4 GHz with any of the quads at the moment, unless you buy one of the extremes.
Ignoring price, take the Q9450.
 
yea whats the multi on q9300? 7.5? a reasonable max fsb of around 480mhz will keep me at 3600mhz, thats if i can hit 480. i had read somewhere that the later q6700 did better than q6600. i mean more than 266mhz better. maybe i am mistaken. i just know if i can get a quad over 3700 it will out perform my 8400 @ 4300 and will be good until nehalem next year. unless some amazing price cut bring the q9550 down to a reasonable price.
 
Why do you want to replace your dual with a quad?
Especially if you're just waiting for Nehalem. Got some encoding to do, or what? Otherwise it's just a waste of time... You won't see any difference...
 
its because the dual is being demoted to my second machine which until now had been an amd. but the brisbane x2 cant keep up anymore. and i dont see any future in continuing with amd. so i would like something better until my next major upgrade to the new socket and triple channel ddr3.
 
baleedit said:
^ WTF?
Click to expand...

The idea is that there's very little point in getting a Q6700 over a Q6600, especially if you plan to overclock, because they'll likely overclock to much the same speed. I can't speak for the Q9450, I've not looked into it much.
 
Without saying "WTF?" again, I'll just go ahead and answer the original question which was "Q6700 or Q9450, price does not matter". Although the 9450 absolutely sucks IMO due to Intel's low multiplier making the chip only marginally better than the Q6600, in this particular instance I'd recommend the 9450.

Both chips top out on the average at about 3.6Ghz. Now if you're saying price does not matter on cooling, then get a high-end water setup and I bet that Q6700 will hit 4Ghz, but that's not guaranteed of course. Then again, if you tried the same with the 9450 from what I've seen NOT hitting 4Ghz would be a guarantee.
 
My Q6600 runs hot and sucks electricity. I will be buying a Q9450 to replace it. How's that for a reason?

Robert
 
in my experience with 2x 45nm cpus, they run as hot or hotter than the 65nm. with almost as much juice needed for oc.
 
@ Valnar: You're not going to be satisfied...it's not any better with a Q9450

If you like OC'ing save some money and get a Q6600, period..G0 is the way to go..
 
I have replaced a Q6700 (G0) by a X3350 (same as Q9450).
Q6700 max oc was 3.3 vs 3.7 for the X3350.
Of course, results varies by unit but 45nm rules!

However, the quality/performance king is the Q6600 G0.
 
silent-circuit said:
Q9700s top out at almost exactly the same place Q6600s do.
Click to expand...

No they do not. I'm at 3.83GHz with headroom on air, I could go to 4 with probably no sweat. As great as the Q6600 is (I've got a a B3) it's simply not a QX9650. Plus the QX9700's have a stock 400MHz FSB and higher multipliers since they are unlocked. People are hitting 4.5 with water with the QX9000's, that's simply not there with a Q6600. Sorry.

I think it's this simple. If you do much video/audio encoding get a Q9450 because of SSE4. I do a fair amount, not a lot, but I have TMPGEnc 4 XPress that supports SSE4 and it can crush a Q6600.
 
I think he meant Q6700 not Q9700.
Besides, your processor is an extreme version. If he was talking about the 45nm quads when he said "Q9700", then they top out in the same place because of the bad multis. This has nothing to do with the Extremes.

So relax guy, your $1,000 is well spent.
 
imo, you have quite a decent CPU already I would suggest that you not upgrade atm since it doesn't seem like you will be making much use of the quad. but being hardware junkies, it is definitely very tempting to upgrade often...but ask your-self this: is it really worth it?...

i know that when i upgraded from my E6600 to my current Q6700, the difference was not noticeable at all in games or applications which i would regularly use. the only difference, that i see as significant, is video encoding. other than that, i feel that my move was not much of an 'upgrade' at all. that being said though, it only cost me 5$ in the end to get this processor.
 
UtopiA said:
I think he meant Q6700 not Q9700.
Besides, your processor is an extreme version. If he was talking about the 45nm quads when he said "Q9700", then they top out in the same place because of the bad multis. This has nothing to do with the Extremes.

So relax guy, your $1,000 is well spent.
Click to expand...

silent-circuit thinks that the Extremes are a complete waste of money. Waste sure, complete I don't think so. We've had some exchanges over the subject so if I misunderstood my bad.
 
mk_ln said:
imo, you have quite a decent CPU already I would suggest that you not upgrade atm since it doesn't seem like you will be making much use of the quad. but being hardware junkies, it is definitely very tempting to upgrade often...but ask your-self this: is it really worth it?...

i know that when i upgraded from my E6600 to my current Q6700, the difference was not noticeable at all in games or applications which i would regularly use. the only difference, that i see as significant, is video encoding. other than that, i feel that my move was not much of an 'upgrade' at all. that being said though, it only cost me 5$ in the end to get this processor.
Click to expand...

So it was worth $5 bucks wasn't it?:D
 
I got the Q9450 because I've been ripping and encoding my entire DVD collection to a digital library, with the quad it's actually bearable to rip a dvd, encode a video file and still do normal tasks without a performance hit.

As far as giving off the same heat as the 65nm I don't see that as possible, while yes they might take the same voltage, physics states that if both are given the same voltage the smaller die will give off less heat plain and simple. The ONLY way it would give off more heat is if you put more voltage into it than the 65nm core was given in which case at a certain point the 45nm would give off more but it's highly unlikely.
 
Agree with Instigator on all points.

You won't get 4Ghz with a Q9450. Go extreme if you want that.

But if you want 3.4 - 3.8, that's easy. I get just over 3.6Ghz on LOW end air with my X3350.

Also, my HS is probably as bad as the stock cooler, and the hottest I can get is 65c. On a TRUE you are looking at 50c max (roughly). That is *nothing* for a load temp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top