she love me, she loves me not :D: (q6600 vs q9400/9300)

i didnt want to spend a topic on in the forum, but here's the thing:

i have a Q6600 atm....but my neighbour is planning on buying mine, so i can get for a few extra bucks (well euro's actually) a q9400 or q9300...

now my questions would be this: wich ones are best suited when it comes to OC'ing? i know the q6600 is (it handles 3.6ghz easily :evildevil) but i cannot find any info on the net for the q9400/9300..:linksucks

so see my dillema:

a faster fsb with less L2 cache

or a lower fsb with more cache?

I would choose at Q9450 at this time. You double your cache from 6MB to 12MB in the transition and get an 8X multiplier. The Q6600 had its time and now, for the money, it is not the processor to buy.

If you can make 450Mhz on the FSB which can be a challenge, then you can make 3.6Ghz on the overclock.

I have clocked the C1 revision Q9450 to:

• 3.6ghz
  
• Vcore: 1.36v
  
• VTT: 1.5v
  
• PLL: 1.6v
  
• NB: 1.40v
  
• SB: Auto
  
• RAM: 2.1v
  

On a P5K-Premium, with Corsair 8500C5.

thanks Derek,

although i have to mention that the Q6600 has a multiplier of 6-9....and 8mb cache.

so would be it worth for that 4mb extra and a slighty higher fsb?

i can make it to 3.6ghz with a multplier of 9 * 400

on a p5k-C with the same modules as you.

thanks Derek,

 

although i have to mention that the Q6600 has a multiplier of 6-9....and 8mb cache.

 

so would be it worth for that 4mb extra and a slighty higher fsb?

 

i can make it to 3.6ghz with a multplier of 9 * 400

 

on a p5k-C with the same modules as you.

The Q6600 cache is nowhere near as robust as the cache in the 45nm Quads. I have worked and played with both. As well, the instruction set for interconnection between the sets of dual cores is far superior in the 45nm Quads. It depends on your desire and ability to generate income. I certainly would not go with the Q6600 at this time. I have also made 3.6 with my L629B330 Q6600 (8 X 450). When I test and am multiplexing audio and video with this CPU (9 X 400) vs my QX9650 set to 3.6Ghz (9 X 400) the difference between tasks is marked with the 45nm processor finishing the job in just over 12 minutes and the Q6600 in just over 17 minutes for a full DVD plexed to VOB.

 

so see my dillema:

 

a faster fsb with less L2 cache

 

or a lower fsb with more cache?

 

How do you figure?

the 9400 / 9300's have a lower Multiplier than a q6600 therefore you will need a MUCH higher FSB to achieve 3.6 ghz. The difference in actual performance (of the increased cache size) will be negligible, unless you are interested in how quickly it takes you to calculate to umpteen digits of pi.

While they get a larger cache (6MB per die, vs 4MB), it is slightly slower, but the size makes up for it. The 45 NM @ same clock as a 65 NM will out perform it in benchmarks. In games? <1 FPS

I was considering upgrading, but thinking it will cost me ~900$ to go from 65 nm, ddr2 board to a 45nm, ddr3 board, i'm going to wait for core i7

i mean, 80 fps in crysis on full @ 1920x1200 is enough, right?

If you have 5 minutes difference between video encodings, then something else has changed/is wrong.

If you already have a buyer lined up go for it. If you are buying new get a 45nm, if you already have a 65 nm, sit on your hands because core i7 is coming out.