Q9300 + 2GB Ram $250

wolf2009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
1,767
now thats definitely hot . too bad i bought q9450 a week ago, or this would have been bought .
 

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
I would pay the extra to get the q9450 OEM for $299 unless you're on a tighter budget. It has a 7.5x multiplier and only 3MB of L2 cache. Between 4 cores that's not a lot of cache. 2x1GB of memory is dirty cheap and hardly worth anything any more unless it's highly overclockable.
 

jjager85

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,439
I would pay the extra to get the q9450 OEM for $299 unless you're on a tighter budget. It has a 7.5x multiplier and only 3MB of L2 cache. Between 4 cores that's not a lot of cache. 2x1GB of memory is dirty cheap and hardly worth anything any more unless it's highly overclockable.

that price was from microcenter, i would have bought that, if not that i got the Q6600 for $200, but im happy.
 

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
Cache does not matter any more

I don't know what reviews you've been reading but I'm afraid you're wrong. A large difference in cache can make a real big difference in certain applications based on how the CPU architecture is designed and how much it benefits from added cache. Cache latency also plays a role as to how much difference added cache makes of course but I can tell you that there definitely is a difference between having 3MB of L2 and having 12MB on a quad core processor.
 

PossumK

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
149
I would pay the extra to get the q9450 OEM for $299 unless you're on a tighter budget. It has a 7.5x multiplier and only 3MB of L2 cache. Between 4 cores that's not a lot of cache. 2x1GB of memory is dirty cheap and hardly worth anything any more unless it's highly overclockable.

Where does it say only 3 MB of L2 cache?
 

Absinthe

Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
662
Listed as an OEM and under product specs it states "Manufacturer Warranty 3 Year Limited Warranty ". Did Intel change the OEM warranty?
 

S-B

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
1,054
Ugh. Let's make this clear. It has 2x2 cores, making four (two duals). Each of those has a 3MB cache (2x3MB); can't really say "6MB", because no core has access to 6MB at any given time.

I'd rather go for either a Q6600 (2x4MB, +more cache +9x multi -higher voltage -more heat). or a Q9450 (2x6MB, +more cache +8x multi -more expensive).
 

PossumK

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
149
Ugh. Let's make this clear. It has 2x2 cores, making four (two duals). Each of those has a 3MB cache (2x3MB); can't really say "6MB", because no core has access to 6MB at any given time.

Just making a point, because the post in question said this:

It has a 7.5x multiplier and only 3MB of L2 cache. Between 4 cores that's not a lot of cache.
 

TheBluePill

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
3,773
Even with the Lower Cache, its 7% faster than the Q6600, Clock-for-Clock..

As for the Cache Doesnt Matter, I will have to Back Annaconda up here, Its actually less important for the majority of things people do, especially game. to the Point, AMD is getting ready to release Deneb Cores with NO Cache.

Food for thought too, With a lower Cache, comes a Lower Transister Count, meaning MUCH less heat and higher OCs.

the 7.5 multi does mean you have to bump the FSP to OC it more, but realistically, at 3.2+ Ghz that everyone should get with this, its 100% kick ass.
 

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
Where does it say only 3 MB of L2 cache?

I meant to say 6MB. I had the T8300 and T9300 dual core Penryn mobile processors on my mind as I was going to reference them since the T8300 has 3MB and the T9300 has 6MB. If the Q9300 was only $199 then I would be more inclined to suggest it over the Q6600 and Q9450 but personally I would go with one of the later due to the low multiplier and less cache on the Q9300. You could check overclocks though to see how well the Q9300 does at getting 3.6Ghz+. All I know is that you're gonna need to reach a higher FSB speed in order to clock those speeds.
 

pc299

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
4,523
As for the Cache Doesnt Matter, I will have to Back Annaconda up here, Its actually less important for the majority of things people do, especially game. to the Point, AMD is getting ready to release Deneb Cores with NO Cache.

Not true at all... Deneb has no L3... but it still has at least 512KB L2 cache per core.
 
Top