Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 Q6600 will OC easier though due to the higher multiplier, and also games slightly better with the larger cache.
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...
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...?
More cache is more cache. What's not to get?
It's because a Q6600 was basically two E6600s on a die.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
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.