• 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.

Q9300 In Stock

If only the multi wasn't so low on these. Ah well, guess I'll go with the Xeon :p
 
It looked like a bargain until I compared the specs between this and the Q6600, there is no mention of any L1 cache on the 9300, the L2 cache is 2MB smaller, although the clock speed is a step up, I don't think it would make it better than a Q6600 though.
 
Outamyhead said:
It looked like a bargain until I compared the specs between this and the Q6600, there is no mention of any L1 cache on the 9300, the L2 cache is 2MB smaller, although the clock speed is a step up, I don't think it would make it better than a Q6600 though.
Click to expand...
It is probably minorly better, but don't forget the new SSE instructions, benchmarks showed huge games for same clocked Core2's 65 vs new 45nm. That may.. or may not be important to you.
 
i would get this since i do video encoding , but dont know whether GIGABYTE p35-ds3l comes with the latest bios that supports this processor or not.
 
Menelmarar said:
It is probably minorly better, but don't forget the new SSE instructions, benchmarks showed huge games for same clocked Core2's 65 vs new 45nm. That may.. or may not be important to you.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the benchmarks since I am looking to build a new system, if there is a boost in how it handles load then I would be interested.
 
Outamyhead said:
Do you have a link to the benchmarks since I am looking to build a new system, if there is a boost in how it handles load then I would be interested.
Click to expand...

A quick look of same clocked conroe and penryn:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=5
There are likely even more applications out now, I can't find the link I saw just recently that IIRC was a huge night and day difference. Though 30-45% on those two things aren't bad at all. There's a more comprehensive recent review using updated tools I just saw recently but can't find :(

The key is finding a recent review that has an updated encoder designed to take advantage of the new SSE4.1 instructions.
 
Hmmm...it's replacing the Q6600 but when playing games, it falls behind it's predecessor, and from the review it's a little tricky to overclock if you wanted to. I'm not sold on the 9300 just yet then, maybe if the Q6600 was phased out and not available.
 
UtopiA said:
Oh, it's the crappy processor.
Click to expand...

It's the low end model for sure. It' has 3MBx2 L2 cache compared to the 6MBx2 of the Q9450, Q9550 and Q9650. Heck, the Q6600 has 4MBx2 of L2 Cache. For owners of the Q6600 (like myself), I would rather wait for the Q9450 aka, the true successor of the Q6600.
 
Yea I would argue that the 9450 is the 6600 sucessor. Part of that though, depends on how well the P45s do with FSB speeds. 3.6-3.8 requires 460-480MHz FSB speeds, the upper end of the P35s range.

The 9300 is to put in cheap desktop PCs - to sell "quad core" to the masses.
 
doormat said:
The 9300 is to put in cheap desktop PCs - to sell "quad core" to the masses.
Click to expand...

Actually, that role belongs to the Q6600. The price will drop to $224 in late April.

Q9300 performs better than Q6600 and it'll take the famed $266 spot.
 
JackPack said:
If you look at performance, the Q9300 beats the Q6600 in every respect.
Click to expand...
Only at stock...
The Q9300 has a 7.5x multiplier, not the best OC'er ever... Especially for that price... And since the Q6600 is getting a price cut. But if you only look at chart performance comparions (epsecially since stock speed for the Q9300 is 2.5 GHz, and 2.4 GHz for the Q6600 -- Not the best comparison ever, is it?) then you deserve to pay $300 for the Q9300. But I guess it all depends on the system. Someone running higher-end memory could probably still take advantage of the Q9300 even with the lowish mult.

Buy a Q6600 G0 for $250, and then use that $50 you saved to buy an aftermarket cooler, and that'll beat the Q9300 for the same price.
 
let me understand what some people are pointing to:

CPU A: 2 cores ----- 2.0Ghz stock speed ----- 14 multi (with high FSB limit)
CPU B: 4 cores ----- 4.0Ghz stock speed ----- 7 multi (with low FSB limit)

CPU A wins cuz I can go to my friends and tell them… I OCed my CPU from 2Ghz to 4Ghz woaa%$#*
CPU B losses cuz it’s embarrassing to say that I just OCed it from 4Ghz to 4.8Ghz though CPU B @4.0Ghz will mop the floor with CPU A @4.5Ghz even at non-multi threaded application

oh now I see the reason
 
The Q9300 should have more OC headroom and run cooler due to the 45nm, although that 7.5 multiplier will limit it to around 3.4ghz on most rigs...

Still, Clock for Clock, its faster than a Q6600 by a small margin, so the question is this, can you push every Q6600 to 3.6ghz on Air, Stable and cool?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top