• 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

F

Flintblade

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
122
I already purchased a Q6700 for $210, but can easily sell it for that price. I can get a Q9450 on these boards for around $310 which ain't bad. Currently, I have a Maximus Formula mobo and a IFX-14 heatsink. I'm thinking of getting better ram as well. I have some 2x2gb Mushkin HP 6400 kit.

So my question is. Would it be worth spending $300 on a Q9450? Would there be any gains. I do want too overclock either CPU. Since I'm on air, I'll probably max out at 3.6ghz on either the Q6700 or the Q9450. So with that being said, should I stick with what I have or get the Q9450?

Also, can anyone recommend me some good overclocking ram. Has too be a 2x2gb kit. Or will my current ram suffice ?
 
Well, you can expect about a 5-10 percent increase in performance at the same clock speed with the q9450. So assuming you got either one to 3.6 gig...you'd get a little improvement with the q9450.

I guess you just have to ask yourself if the 5-10 percent additional performance is worth the 50% ($100) markup in price??? In my opinion it is't worth it. If you game, you'd be much better off putting that 100 dollars towards a better video card or more ram.

There are other small benefits to q9450 such as lower heat and SSE4.1. There are also downsides to the q9450 such as motherboard support. A LOT of people are hitting walls on overclocking the q9450 around 3.2 to 3.4ghz.

I just went through the same decision and went with a q6700. It has a nice 10x multi so I wasn't as concerned about getting THE absolute best overclocking motherboard out there. I am running 8 gig so it'll probably help a touch to be able to run a lower FSB to keep that memory stable.

When it comes down to it, you just have to decide if the 5-10 percent bump is worth the extra 100 bucks. To some people it is, and others it is not. It wasn't worth it for me personally. I'd rather spend that extra on a video card...and I can guarantee that I'll see a lot more of a difference performance-wise putting the extra 100 bucks towards the video card instead of the cpu.

**also of note, you can get away with slower memory with the q6700 because you FSB is much lower. So your current memory should be just fine. The q9450 might require you get faster memory if you wanna push it very far...which would also be another additional expense.
 
bobn4burton said:
Well, you can expect about a 5-10 percent increase in performance at the same clock speed with the q9450. So assuming you got either one to 3.6 gig...you'd get a little improvement with the q9450.

I guess you just have to ask yourself if the 5-10 percent additional performance is worth the 50% ($100) markup in price??? In my opinion it is't worth it. If you game, you'd be much better off putting that 100 dollars towards a better video card or more ram.

There are other small benefits to q9450 such as lower heat and SSE4.1. There are also downsides to the q9450 such as motherboard support. A LOT of people are hitting walls on overclocking the q9450 around 3.2 to 3.4ghz.

I just went through the same decision and went with a q6700. It has a nice 10x multi so I wasn't as concerned about getting THE absolute best overclocking motherboard out there. I am running 8 gig so it'll probably help a touch to be able to run a lower FSB to keep that memory stable.

When it comes down to it, you just have to decide if the 5-10 percent bump is worth the extra 100 bucks. To some people it is, and others it is not. It wasn't worth it for me personally. I'd rather spend that extra on a video card...and I can guarantee that I'll see a lot more of a difference performance-wise putting the extra 100 bucks towards the video card instead of the cpu.

**also of note, you can get away with slower memory with the q6700 because you FSB is much lower. So your current memory should be just fine. The q9450 might require you get faster memory if you wanna push it very far...which would also be another additional expense.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
bobn4burton said:
Well, you can expect about a 5-10 percent increase in performance at the same clock speed with the q9450. So assuming you got either one to 3.6 gig...you'd get a little improvement with the q9450.

I guess you just have to ask yourself if the 5-10 percent additional performance is worth the 50% ($100) markup in price??? In my opinion it is't worth it. If you game, you'd be much better off putting that 100 dollars towards a better video card or more ram.

There are other small benefits to q9450 such as lower heat and SSE4.1. There are also downsides to the q9450 such as motherboard support. A LOT of people are hitting walls on overclocking the q9450 around 3.2 to 3.4ghz.

I just went through the same decision and went with a q6700. It has a nice 10x multi so I wasn't as concerned about getting THE absolute best overclocking motherboard out there. I am running 8 gig so it'll probably help a touch to be able to run a lower FSB to keep that memory stable.

When it comes down to it, you just have to decide if the 5-10 percent bump is worth the extra 100 bucks. To some people it is, and others it is not. It wasn't worth it for me personally. I'd rather spend that extra on a video card...and I can guarantee that I'll see a lot more of a difference performance-wise putting the extra 100 bucks towards the video card instead of the cpu.

**also of note, you can get away with slower memory with the q6700 because you FSB is much lower. So your current memory should be just fine. The q9450 WILL require you get faster memory if you wanna push it very far (eg. past 3.4Ghz)...which would also be another additional expense.
Click to expand...

Again, QFT. Oh, and fixed.
 
Depends on just how much you rely on your CPU. Do you do any 3D rending or stuff of that ilk? Those SSE4.1 are gonna come into play there. If not, might as well just go with the cheaper, you're not gonna actually "feel" any benefits between the two if you're not doing any real cpu-intensive stuff and just gaming.
 
Doesnt the extra cache come into to play in some form or another? I also was told that the Q9450 will run cooler as well. Am i wrong here?
 
The extra cache doesnt help as much as everyone would like. It provides around 3-10% performance improvement, IIRC. Yes, the Q9450 will run cooler but also can't take as much voltage, so be careful (because its 45nm instead of 65nm).
 
For a markup of $100, get the Q6700.
IMO, in order to be competitive, the Q9450 price should be ~15% over the Q6700.
 
I am in two minds about the q9450 myself. On one hand, any overclock you get with the q9450 is faster than the equivalent clock speed on the q6600 for two reasons - higher IPC (instructions per clock) and higher FSB. Of course this higher FSB is also part of the problem with the Q9450 - its a double edged sword.
Simultaneously, at a given clock speed, chances are the q9450 is running cooler. Finally it has new streaming instructions that are supported by codecs and transcoders, and that's only going to be more prevalent, I can see it being incorporated into drivers, etc. for a little extra burst of speed.

Downsides are, of course the more complicated overclocking - higher FSBs required, more tricky GTL+ tweaking (on an intel chipset, if you are really looking for max stable clocks), more expensive than a Q6600 and you're stressing your mobo more. Ideally, you should also have faster RAM. With a Q6600, for 99% of the OC/s out there with an intel chipset, you will only need DDR2 800. For a q9450, you could benefit from RAM that goes higher. You could run non-even dividers on the RAM, but those are the basic issues I've been thinking about.

In 6 months, I wonder how much the q9450 and q6600 will be worth, compared to current prices.
 
It's the heat issue that concerns me.I get a lot of conflicting info on how much of an issue it is,some have said that to get to the 3.6 range with the 6700 you'd need water cooling,which I don't want to deal with,while the 9450 only needs air cooling.Just how much hotter does the 6700 run?
 
i run a q6700 @3.6ghz (9x400) on air. more info in sig.

i believe vcore is 1.415. system is rock solid stable, primed and OCCT'ed over 20 hrs each and 3dmarked for 24 hrs. i do have practically the best air cooling possible, tho. antec 900 has a 200mm exhaust fan directly above the cpu socket, and the TRU fan blows the CPU air straight to the 200mm and out the case.
 
Any of these coolers will allow you to reach 3.6Ghz on air:

$37 - XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 120mm Rifle CPU Cooler (optional: $7 - XIGMATEK ACK-I7751 LGA775 Bolt-Thru-Kit)
$50 - ZEROtherm Nirvana NV120 120mm CPU Cooler ($10 MIR)
$59 - Noctua NH-U12P Universal heatsink
$57 - Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme CPU HS + Scythe S-Flex Fan SFF21E ($15)
 
Somnambulator said:
i run a q6700 @3.6ghz (9x400) on air. more info in sig.

i believe vcore is 1.415. system is rock solid stable, primed and OCCT'ed over 20 hrs each and 3dmarked for 24 hrs. i do have practically the best air cooling possible, tho. antec 900 has a 200mm exhaust fan directly above the cpu socket, and the TRU fan blows the CPU air straight to the 200mm and out the case.
Click to expand...

How well does your Q6700 do with a 10x multiplier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top