CPU Cache and future programs

[soccerballtux]

3.8Ghz q6600 vs 3.6Ghz q9550. Same performance NOW, but what about in the future as programs get bigger, etc. The 8MB cache might begin to be a bottleneck, and the q9550 would pull ahead?

The q9550 costs ~2x as much, too...but would be less strain on the PWM of my IP35-E. But it has a lower mult...

So many stupid choices....

 

[GundamF91]

get Q6600. by the time you need additional cache, you can probaby buy Nehalem for cheapl.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Getting 3.8 GHz from a q6600 is harder than getting 3.6 GHz from a q9550...

q9550

On a (cheaply) watercooled 780i, although getting the FSB stable over 455 (3.87 GHz) was apparently tough.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah, but it costs like 2x as much, if not more.

I think I'm going to just wait until the q9550 comes down or I can get it used or something-- My current processor is plenty fast for me.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
My current processor is plenty fast for me.

Well, no need to worry about the price of quads then, or bother yourself with:

So many stupid choices....