Q9300 or Q6600

bruceyg

n00b
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
58
As I know, multiplier for Q9300 is 7.5, I think I will OC slightly, will be happy with 3ghz. I just bought a P5b deluxe, how is oc ability of this board?
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
If you're not going for an insane OC, I would suggest the Q9300. 3Ghz is easy. I've got mine stable at 3Ghz with 1.032v. If you want a crazy OC, the Q6600 would be the better choice.
 

bruceyg

n00b
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
58
sounds, Q9300 is a better choice for me, I will be very happy with a quad core CPU runs at 3ghz. Do I need a better cooler to run it at 3ghz?
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
I'm running a Scythe Ninja 2 w/ a bolt-thru kit and all my fans low on my P180B (door closed) and I can't get it over 55C in a 24-hour period (with a fairly warm room).
 

Boostage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
327
I apologize for the thread jack, but stock for stock how does the q9300 compare to the phenom II 920?

Secondly where did you find it for $160. newegg has it for $244 and other sites a little higher.
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,060
clock for clock the Q6600 and Q9300 perform almost the same, ~5% difference. The Q6600 will OC easier though due to the higher multiplier, and also games slightly better with the larger cache. Q9300 will eat less power, but would require a motherboard with decent (active or WC'd) northbridge cooling to reach the upper end of the Q6600's OC'ing range, 3.6Ghz.
 

Valnar

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
3,157
My opinion is that the Q6600 is the best bang per dollar spent.

I know everybody hates the term "TCO", but the total cost over the life of the CPU also depends on how much electricity you will use.

To me, the Q9300 is an easy decision. I wouldn't think of putting an overly hot and power hungry Q6600 in any PC these days.
 

AMDXP

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
2,631
I know everybody hates the term "TCO", but the total cost over the life of the CPU also depends on how much electricity you will use.

To me, the Q9300 is an easy decision. I wouldn't think of putting an overly hot and power hungry Q6600 in any PC these days.

Oh geeze. I think older procs ate even more power.

I have an AMD Mobile 2400+, PIII 933 Mhz, and a P4 3.2C. That all run in tip top shape like knew.

As long as you aren't running it to hell and back, you should be ok.
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,060
Oh geeze. I think older procs ate even more power.

I have an AMD Mobile 2400+, PIII 933 Mhz, and a P4 3.2C. That all run in tip top shape like knew.

As long as you aren't running it to hell and back, you should be ok.

This.

It's not like everyone runs their systems at load 24 hours a day. Power consumption differeces are negligible at idle.

Besides, this isn't [G]reenForum...it's [H]ardForum. Who gives a squat about power consumption when most people here are running high end systems with high end vid cards that chew up wattage.
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
Actually, with a minimal price difference for comparing products, I would be looking at the one that uses less power. No reason [H]ard can't be efficient.
 

Bakku

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
317
was looking for a Q6600 myself, but now I have a Q9300, and I am happy with it.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,419
If you're not going for an insane OC, I would suggest the Q9300. 3Ghz is easy. I've got mine stable at 3Ghz with 1.032v. If you want a crazy OC, the Q6600 would be the better choice.


Yeah man, I just bought a Q9300 and found it to overclock very easily on my Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R. I've got it at 3.5ghz right now @ 1.225V and I'm not even sure why I even added that miniscule amount of voltage. Gonna tweak it more today and see how far I can push it.
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,060
Still....something about that 7.5 multiplier thats make want to........vomit.

Just how much voltage are you giving the northbridge to get a FSB of 466 stable? And if you're running it 24/7 I hope you like buying new motherboards often.
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
With my 400FSB, I am not adding any extra NB voltage. I do run mine 24/7... I'm not a hard core OC'r. I like to pay for a lesser CPU and just give it a slight bump to equal a more expensive CPU that I was looking at.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,419
Still....something about that 7.5 multiplier thats make want to........vomit.

Just how much voltage are you giving the northbridge to get a FSB of 466 stable? And if you're running it 24/7 I hope you like buying new motherboards often.


My bios reports that the northbridge is 1.1V stock. I have it at 1.2V, but I'm not even sure I needed it. I just did it because. I'll be tweaking it sometime in the next couple of days.
 

Surly73

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,782
Who gives a squat about power consumption when most people here are running high end systems with high end vid cards that chew up wattage.

The people who post and say that they also care about heat and/or power. There's lots of us out here.

HTPCs, silent PCs, people who dislike waste, people with case limitations because they want a LANParty machine and can't add infinite cooling etc...
 

jamhamm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,052
The Q6600 will OC easier though due to the higher multiplier, and also games slightly better with the larger cache.

what's the deal with the l2 on the 6600 anyway

what's this 2x4mb business?

the 9300 has 6bm... and the 6600 has... 4mb twice?

what...?
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,060
The people who post and say that they also care about heat and/or power. There's lots of us out here.

HTPCs, silent PCs, people who dislike waste, people with case limitations because they want a LANParty machine and can't add infinite cooling etc...

Power consumption is one thing. When heavily OC'ing a proc, a Q6600 or a Q93/400 they are both going to produce about the same amount of heat.

Push a Q9400 to 3.5-3.6 Ghz and it's going to run in the 50-60's. Push a Q6600 to 3.6 and it's going to run in the 50-60's. That is if both are on a TRU120. I don't see the heat savings, on anyones rig. Even at stock they both run at around the same temps.

It's a matter of personal preference really. I just don't see the 45nm chips producing any less heat than the 65nm chips. i7's are even worse, so that theory gets tossed straight out the window.
 

jamhamm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,052
More cache is more cache. What's not to get?

it wasnt really more or less that i was questioning... i get that 8 is more than 6

it was the config that i was asking about

why 2x4?

but in digging around the net i see there isnt really a clear answer - all of the kentsfield processors had that config

it's just what intel was doing at the time
 

rflcptr

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
6,189
it wasnt really more or less that i was questioning... i get that 8 is more than 6

it was the config that i was asking about

why 2x4?

but in digging around the net i see there isnt really a clear answer - all of the kentsfield processors had that config

it's just what intel was doing at the time
It's because a Q6600 was basically two E6600s on a die.
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
I used to have my NB and SB set to auto for my 3Ghz OC, however, I have just recent set both the minimum voltage the mobo would let me go and my OC is holding strong (with 4 sticks of RAM too) @1.032 core voltage.

 

Surly73

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,782
Power consumption is one thing. When heavily OC'ing a proc, a Q6600 or a Q93/400 they are both going to produce about the same amount of heat.

Push a Q9400 to 3.5-3.6 Ghz and it's going to run in the 50-60's. Push a Q6600 to 3.6 and it's going to run in the 50-60's. That is if both are on a TRU120. I don't see the heat savings, on anyones rig. Even at stock they both run at around the same temps.

It's a matter of personal preference really. I just don't see the 45nm chips producing any less heat than the 65nm chips. i7's are even worse, so that theory gets tossed straight out the window.

I know you mentioned a constant heatsink. It's worth noting that higher temperature is not the same thing as more heat, if other factors are variable. The ATI vs. NV camp just couldn't grasp that when the 4870s came out ("They make sooo much more heat than the nVidia's, but luckily consume the same power" - whatever guys)

Not everyone "heavily OCs", that's my point. Lots of people run stock clocks or mild OCs and may wish to discuss which line of CPUs gives the most power efficient light OC, or has the best EIST/C1E behaviour for power savings, or can be undervolted at stock clocks etc... Granted, most threads are about lots of OC, but please don't just generalize "nobody cares about power or heat".

As an example, I have case restrictions due to the physical installation in my home office (the case must fit inside of a ventilated compartment in a solid cherry-wood desk). I'm concerned about upgrading from an E6400 to a Q6600 and what the quad would do to the heat output. If I get a quad, I'm seriously thinking it should be a 9000 series, also for heat reasons. Not all of us have 6x120 fans, water cooling, or huge cases sitting open in the middle of our living rooms. We're not all the same kind of [H]ard.
 

Soul Coughing

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
96
i'd be curious about this too. i mean, the watts have increased but im sure the efficiency has as well. It would be good to see how much less/more newer machines use
 

Riccochet

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,060
I know you mentioned a constant heatsink. It's worth noting that higher temperature is not the same thing as more heat, if other factors are variable. The ATI vs. NV camp just couldn't grasp that when the 4870s came out ("They make sooo much more heat than the nVidia's, but luckily consume the same power" - whatever guys)

Not everyone "heavily OCs", that's my point. Lots of people run stock clocks or mild OCs and may wish to discuss which line of CPUs gives the most power efficient light OC, or has the best EIST/C1E behaviour for power savings, or can be undervolted at stock clocks etc... Granted, most threads are about lots of OC, but please don't just generalize "nobody cares about power or heat".

As an example, I have case restrictions due to the physical installation in my home office (the case must fit inside of a ventilated compartment in a solid cherry-wood desk). I'm concerned about upgrading from an E6400 to a Q6600 and what the quad would do to the heat output. If I get a quad, I'm seriously thinking it should be a 9000 series, also for heat reasons. Not all of us have 6x120 fans, water cooling, or huge cases sitting open in the middle of our living rooms. We're not all the same kind of [H]ard.

Both Q6600 and Q93/400 are 95 watt parts. If both have the same cooler both are going to produce the same amount of heat. Where you can undervolt one, you can undervolt the other. They both run around the same temp and put out the same amount of heat. You're point is moot.

I guess what I was getting at is that I'm sick of hearing people say that 45nm chips run cooler. They do not. Period. i7 is a shining example. It's just a smaller die. The heat output line is damn near linear for both 65 and 45 nm parts. Throw a TRU120 on a Q6600 at stock and it barely breaks 40c at load. Same cooler on a Q9400 at stock runs around the same temps. As you increase the speed/voltage the temp increases, on both chips, roughly the same by percentage of OC. You'd see slight decreases in temps/heat output if you underclock/volt both chips. The cooler is only going to dissipate what it can, regardless of what it's on. TRU120 isn't going to perform better on a Q9xxx than a Q6600. I use the TRU120 as an example since it's widely regarded as the king of air coolers, since you obviously are not interested in water and such.
 

Kwincy

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,626
My Q6600 OC's very well and it's not even a G0 stepping. I have it OC'd to 3.02Ghz with an Asus Lion Square. No problems with the OC since I got it. 8 megs of cache doesn't hurt either.
 

Surly73

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,782
Both Q6600 and Q93/400 are 95 watt parts. If both have the same cooler both are going to produce the same amount of heat. Where you can undervolt one, you can undervolt the other. They both run around the same temp and put out the same amount of heat. You're point is moot.

I'm pretty sure I've read several folks sharing that the TDP ratings are gross approximations, and that the 45nm parts come in well under the TDPs. If you're just going by the spec papers, things may not be as they seem. I've read statements which say exactly that just in the last week, but I didn't file any links, sorry.

Going to 45nm is not just a smaller die. The heat, nay, all of the power consumption is due to waste - there's no real work going on inside a CPU except moving electrons around, flipping transistors on and off etc... The smaller process makes each transistor smaller, thus requiring less power to actuate. 45nm parts will be both smaller, and more power efficient than the same design in 65nm. On top of that, the process improvements usually allow lower voltages for the same functionality as well.

I support the dislike of blanket statements like 'any 45nm CPU will run cooler than any 65nm CPU', but the process scale absolutely makes a difference to power efficiency.
 

blgdinger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
202
I don't know where he found it that cheap, but New Egg isn't always the cheapest.

http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0299998

I had to go pick that up today. I was there last Saturday and had found the Q600 for $159 and I was like oh snap, but I had to wait on my power supply to be returned before I bought anything. I went back tehre today and they were all sold out of it and even after hassling them they said they wouldn't get anymore in at all which is why I went with the Q9300.

I won't be disappointed will I? I wanted to hit 3.0ghz with it on the stock fan, but what the fuck does the stock HSF have a circular glob of paste that doesn't even cover the entire surface of the SQUARE shaped CPU? :rolleyes: This doesn't look good at all... and really concerns me about grabbing an arctic cooler...
 

bruceyg

n00b
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
58
Eventually, I picked up a Q6600 over a Q9300. I overclocked it to 3ghz with vcore dropped to 1.25V, windows 7 shows the index of CPU and RAM are 7.3 and 7.3, about same. The realtemp shows the temperatures of 47, 46, 42, 42C at full load, with Xigmatek S1283 installed. It also can hit 3.5Ghz.
The Tj showed by your realtemp is 95C, doesn't seem right to me. I think it should be 100C, if you change it to 100C, the temp will increase 5C.


I used to have my NB and SB set to auto for my 3Ghz OC, however, I have just recent set both the minimum voltage the mobo would let me go and my OC is holding strong (with 4 sticks of RAM too) @1.032 core voltage.

 

BababooeyHTJ

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
6,951
With my 400FSB, I am not adding any extra NB voltage. I do run mine 24/7... I'm not a hard core OC'r. I like to pay for a lesser CPU and just give it a slight bump to equal a more expensive CPU that I was looking at.

If your running it at auto you actually are, probably much more than you need.
I would take the q6600 just because of the larger cache. Who cares if it runs a bit hotter its not like you'll be using the stock cooler, I hope.
 

tlc4tvm

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
341
The q9300 has 2x3MB as opposed to 2X4MB...

You could run both at 400 fsb pretty easy, with the q6600 should be able to get 3.2 without too much problem. Sure it's a little hotter but you also have more cache contributing to the heat as well.

Have you thought about taking the plung on one of the 12mb cache ones? They are a little more but probably better in the long run.
 

yamahaSHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
360
I'm doubting the cache is creating the extra heat when comparing the 90nm vs 45nm die.

If your running it at auto you actually are, probably much more than you need.
I would take the q6600 just because of the larger cache. Who cares if it runs a bit hotter its not like you'll be using the stock cooler, I hope.

Whu? I'm not running anything on Auto.
 

Everett1

Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,012
Have you thought about taking the plunge on one of the 12mb cache ones? They are a little more but probably better in the long run.

The Q9550 seems to be a popular choice as of lately (aside from Q6600), in terms of the C2Q.
 
Top