Q6600 vs E8400 vs Q9450

Status
Not open for further replies.

X1950XT

Posts: 10   +0
Hey guys,


I'm wondering, which CPU do you find performs better?

The 2.4GHZ Q6600 12MB Cache FSB 1066MHZ (Quad-Core) 249.99$ Newegg
The 3.00GHZ E8400 6MB Cache FSB 1333MHZ (Dual-Core) 209.99$ Newegg
The 2.66GHz 12MB Cache FSB 1333MHZ (Quad-Core) 379.99$ Newegg

Wich one delivers the best bang for the buck and best performance?

You decide!
 
For games the E8400 will perform better but for heavy multi-tasking the quad core parts are more interesting.
 
I would imagine that is purely due to the higher clock frequency. You should be able to overclock the Q6600 just fine, especially since I see you've decided on a decent aftermarket heatsink (in another post).

I suppose on the same note, you'd be able to overclock the E8400 and potentially surpass the Q6600's overclocked performance with games. Whatever the case may be I'd definitely still run with a Q6600 as a matter of personal choice.
 
Ok 1 question tho, will the q6600 be worth it in 2-5 months? Beacuse im sure im getting the PC in 3-5 months and if new parts come out in the meantime i'll just replace them. So i will probably replace the Q6600 if it isin't worth it?
 
I do not have a crystal ball, sorry. That said, I'm not aware of any stupendous technological advancement in processors on the horizon. :) Your PC is never going to be king of the hill for long. I built the beast I have now back when Pentium D's just came out etc. A few months later, it was a mere mid-grade PC.

If I were you, I would purchase the Q6600.
 
I doubt you'll feel disappointed with either CPU, really.

The way I see it though, even when I used to play games, I still multi-tasked with my PC. I had quite a few applications running (by choice), and a lot of people just don't know any better so they have random processes running in the background. Even if the overclocked Q6600 isn't going to be the direct champion with gaming, in my opinion, overall system performance would be higher (for me) with a Q6600 if I were gaming. While I were fragging, I'd have a few extra cores hanging out handling system related threads :).
 
What? it beat the core 2 extreams? oh i thought the extreams were actually faster than a normal one in addition to the unlocked multiplier.

which ones faster?
the most expensive...

Bang for the buck, the 9450 is out.
I would go with the quad-core. Basicly the same as Zenosincks as i have alot of background programs and the benefit of dual core gamming over quad isn't all that good.

That said, I'm not aware of any stupendous technological advancement in processors on the horizon.

I think nehalem is coming soon.....
i think is also going to be at least semi stupendous...
Naitive quad core i don't really know but hyper threading? woo!! :)

What does naitive quad core do besides being just that?
 
i think that it would be 32 but that doesn't really matter.

really i thought that nehalem was supposed to come out this yearish.
Sometime in Q3.

when is Q3 lol?
 
Zenosincks said:
I would imagine that is purely due to the higher clock frequency. You should be able to overclock the Q6600 just fine, especially since I see you've decided on a decent aftermarket heatsink (in another post).

If that's in regard to E8400 being better than the Q6600, it's not entirely go to do with the frequency, some applications aren't configured to even be able to use four cores, so the Core 2 Duo performs better, focused techology compared to a quad spread out over four. Also the Q6600 has a slower FSB than the Duo's, and the fact that E8400 is 45nm.

On the benchmarks I saw though, even the old Core 2 Duo beat the Q6600 in certain applications. Basically the trend seems to be that the Core 2 Duo are better than the Quadcore by huge distances when it comes to gaming.

Otherwise, the quadcore is better on applications and rendering. The Duo seemed better at audio tasks also. For a balanced system that is 50/50 everything kinda deal, Q6600 probably a preferred option. To run games are max settings and really pull the potential from your rig for gaming, then a Core 2 Duo is the weapon of choice.

I went from Q6600 to E8200 because my box is a gamer only.
 
I've noticed there are two steppings for Q6600, B3 and KO, so I want to know what is the difference between the two, except for wattage, I mean, do dey overclock the same and perform the same?
I plan playing a lot of games, but do other things as well, nothing professional, but I think that Q6600 will be a better one in a year, for those who don't intend on buying another one in 2-3 years time, as I don't...
So, is it problem if I buy a B3 stepping Q6600?
 
X1950XT said:
The 2.4GHZ Q6600 12MB Cache FSB 1066MHZ (Quad-Core) 249.99$ Newegg
Q6600 has 8 MB of cache, not 12.

Doctor_hv said:
I've noticed there are two steppings for Q6600, B3 and KO, so I want to know what is the difference between the two, except for wattage, I mean, do dey overclock the same and perform the same?
The steppings are B3 and G0.

G0 is newer, it has 40 bugs fixed from stepping B3. It also runs a bit cooler and thus can overclock better than B3. Its thermal design power is 10 watts less, I'm not sure about the default voltage though.
 
Benchmarks indicate that the Q9450 beats all the others in my list in all of the benchmarks so i guess it wins..
 
349$ for it. And 150$ more than the Q6600 for better performance, 45NM, 1333FSB and futureproof is i guess worth it for me tho.
 
im not so sure.
it does have a larger cach.

yes at 150 more bucks...the only diference between that and the one a step down is im pretty sure just the multiplyer. (the Q9300 only hase 7.5 ??!!!)

Im starting to get the impression that intel is getting pretty ****y since AMD is behind.
I can only wonder what would happen if AMD died :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back