TechSpot

Q6600 vs E8400 vs Q9450

By X1950XT
Apr 6, 2008
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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!
  2. Matthew

    Matthew TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,060   +84 Staff Member

    Bang for buck? Q6600...
  3. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    For games the E8400 will perform better but for heavy multi-tasking the quad core parts are more interesting.
  4. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    Yeah true didou i read some reviews online they said that in some
  5. Matthew

    Matthew TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,060   +84 Staff Member

    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.
  6. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    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?
  7. Matthew

    Matthew TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,060   +84 Staff Member

    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.
  8. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    Ok so we'll see then... :)
  9. Matthew

    Matthew TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,060   +84 Staff Member

    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 :).
  10. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

  11. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,367   +125

    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.

    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?
     
  12. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    Yeah after nehalem the new 35NM technology will come out.

    2009-2010ish
  13. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,367   +125

    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?
  14. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    Umm idk maybe this summer it will come out but they will be relly expensive i guess
  15. fullmetalvegan

    fullmetalvegan TS Enthusiast Posts: 162

    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.
  16. Doctor_hv

    Doctor_hv TS Rookie Posts: 81

    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?
  17. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,916   +9

    Q6600 has 8 MB of cache, not 12.

    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.
  18. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,367   +125

    What about the 45nm Q9300? does the 45 nm help with efficency or something?
  19. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    Benchmarks indicate that the Q9450 beats all the others in my list in all of the benchmarks so i guess it wins..
  20. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,367   +125

    No crap the Q9450 wins...
    Its the most expensive!
  21. X1950XT

    X1950XT TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 81

    349$ for it. And 150$ more than the Q6600 for better performance, 45NM, 1333FSB and futureproof is i guess worth it for me tho.
  22. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,367   +125

    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 :(
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.