E7200 vs. E8400 vs. Q6600 vs. Q9450 Cost/Performance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

01km

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2008
2
0
0
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Do people not even read what I wrote?? The heat output difference is INSIGFICANT! And the "extra heat" has different effects depending on where you live Do the world a favor and turn off your PC, or put it in standby, when you're not using. Doing this will make heat output a non-factor. But, if people insist on bringing this up I'll just try to do a quick estimate...

q=mcdeltaT

The amount of (q) required to raise the room temperature from 22.22C to 22.77 (1 degree F), is. Density of air is about 1.2 kg/m^3. In a 8mx4mx4m room, there would be 153.6 kg of air. In a 6 room house, that's 926.1 kg.

q = (153,600 g) * (1.012 J/g-K) * (0.55 K) = 84593 Joules, x6 = 507558 J for the whole house

To raise the temp 1 degree F for a house over the span of an hour (time the computer would be turned on) would require 141W. Over half a day would require 11.7W

The TDP of a Q9450 is 95W and the Q6600 is 105W. That's a 10W, or 10 J/s, difference. So in about half a day, the average time the computer should be on or in use, the Q6600 should put out enough heat to raise the temp of a house by 1 degree F more than what the Q9450 would. (43200 seconds in 12 hours, 10W * 43200 = 432000 J more output of the Q6600 over the Q9450. Since it takes 500,000 J to raise the temp of a house by one degree, I can say it would take the Q6600 about half a day to raise the temp of a house one degree more than what a Q9450, under the same operating conditions, does.)

If you google it, most energy saving tips say if you turn your AC up (or heat down) by one degree you'll save an average of 2% on your bill, assuming the units run 24/7. Since I'm only assuming the computer is staying on half the day, we can estimate the extra cost of the Q6600, raising the temp in the summer by one degree more than a Q9450 would, to cost you 1% more on your bill. Say your bill is fairly high, $100/mo, and you would spend an extra $1/mo on your bill, or $12/yr. That's $24 over 2 years if you live in a place that uses AC year-around. If you live in a place that gets cold, then the Q6600 wouldn't hurt your electric bill over the course of a year, since you'll run AC for half the year and heat for the other half and the extra heat output by the Q6600 would cut the need for a heater's output.

All of these numbers are estimates, and I think I fairly assumed and over-estimated standard operating practices and costs.
I think you learn Physical too much, LOL.
The most important is Price/Performance , not about 10W and 1F difference. If u turn your Air Conditioner increase or decrease 1Celsius, it's make a vary of energy change than difference of two CPU.
In my opinion, E7200 and Q6600 is the best p/p. If you use your computer for only HDTV task, E7200 is enough. But with quad-core, Q6600 has more powerful. In this case, if you have more than 180$, you should take Q6600, and if you aren't enough money, take the Peryn E7200
 

tallman45

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,463
0
0
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Tallman45, you have absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. Did you even go to school? You have provided zero evidence to anything you have said.

You need proof that a 2.66ghz processor can do work faster than a 2.4ghz processor ?

All the reviews are the evidence you seek, look at the charts, charts are your proof that tasks are done faster or slower by 2 compared processors, it does not take much to understand that once that task is done the system goes to idle


OK, here is a chart in seconds so its easy to illustrate

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2178793,00.asp

On the Qx6850 it finished an Aftereffects 7.0 app test 22 seconds faster than a E6850

to keep it simple if you did just the one task and were done, you could shut off the system, its power useage and heat production stopped while the E6850 system still ran for those 22 seconds

Which system do you think used more power and generated more heat for that one task ?
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Wow, most of the people in this thread have completely missed whatever point I was making. Obviously this place isn't as technical as I assumed.

Tallman45: Well duh, the Q9450 is going to perform tasks faster than a Q6600. However did you freaking miss my earlier point, one of the most important things I said? Here, I'll repeat myself and I'll take it slow that that even you can understand: The OP [original poster] is using this computer for watching videos and playing games. Therefore, you're "finishing tasks faster" argument is completely invalid, because a game is not going to be "done" sooner on a faster processor, and a movie isn't going to play 22 seconds faster on a faster processor. The OP makes zero, zip, nilch, none, and no reference to encoding movies or doing anything like this. And if you try to argue that hard drive access or some other bologne will be done quicker, just keep in mind these tasks use less than 1% of the processing power of any quad core processor. Not to mention, and this is important, hard drive access also to occur through other, SLOWER, buses on the motherboard. You're argument would only hold ground if the buyer was intending to use the processor for heavy encoding (or similar) tasks, but he or she is not. So, you fail? When I said give me some proof, I mean you need to give me some relevant and concrete proof.

O1km: I think you missed part of my assumption. I was saying that most experts equate the act of turning the AC up by 1 defree Faranheit (.55 Celcius) would bring about cost savings of about 2%. Since I made the assumption that the computer will be on for only half the day, I basically just figured out how much total heat it would take to raise the temperature of the entire house (small by some people's standards) by 1 degree F (0.55 C). Since the Q6600 has a TDP rating 10W higher than a Q9450, I was able to estimate that it would actually take the Q6600 approximately all of this "half day of on time" to raise the temperature by 0.55 C. Thus, this rise in temperature would be equivalent to turning the AC down by 1 F, since the Q6600 is raising the temperature and thus making the AC work more. So, that would be about a 1% increase on the electric bill.

toadeater: The extra heat does have to go somewhere. Are you saying you have your PC isolated so that all of the extra "hot air" goes directly outside? If not, then the PC is still inside your house and proper ventilation will only make sure the room stays cool. There would still have to be every so slightly more work done by an AC unit to keep the room at a constant temperature if there's something increasing the temp in that room.

Cheex: His arguments have no proof or relevance. This really upsets me. I either want to see him stop making such claims or give me some hard evidence to proove me wrong. I love the Earth, too, and if the OP had enough money the Q9450 is certainly a great processor that is not only more powerful than a Q6600 but also has a lower thermal footprint. However, since the OP said his budget is tight, the Q6600 will suffice and over a two years amount of time it is not going to cost him, personally, more than a Q9450 would.
 

OLpal

Member
Feb 12, 2008
188
0
0
Everyone is trying to make this difficult !!
If you've been wanting a Q9450 ever since they came out, [you only go around once ] , get it !!! $279 @ microcenter...
I'm waiting on the Q9550 to come down to around $300 in about a week !!

For $80 [get what you really want, cooler, faster, more efficient, 45nm ] Q9450
Pair it up with a Asus P5Q-E motherboard & 4 gig of quality ram !!
maybe a ATI 4850 video card

Enjoy Life ; Ol'Pal Gary :D


Originally posted by: Cheex
cusideabelincoln stop bashing on Tallman45 and let's keep this discussion civil.

Moving on...

In my case the energy cost isn't so much the concern, it is the immediate purchase cost and what will be better over time (price/performance).
Since the first announcements, I've wanted a Q9450...however, at this point, with Nehalem on our heels, the Q6600 seems the best interim upgrade option for me. At least until a Nehalem platform becomes affordable.

 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Originally posted by: tallman45
Your right cusideabelincoln

We are all wrong

See, this statement doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread. Obviously not all of you are wrong, since more people in this topic are recommending the Q6600 over the Q9450. I think you've missed the point of all of my arguments. Or you are actually just trying to flame-bait me.
 

toadeater

Senior member
Jul 16, 2007
488
0
0
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
toadeater: The extra heat does have to go somewhere. Are you saying you have your PC isolated so that all of the extra "hot air" goes directly outside? If not, then the PC is still inside your house and proper ventilation will only make sure the room stays cool. There would still have to be every so slightly more work done by an AC unit to keep the room at a constant temperature if there's something increasing the temp in that room.

There is enough heat dissipation in a typical home that a single 100-200W heat source is never going to raise the temperatures in the entire house, or even in an average-sized room. Just having your door open is enough to dissipate that much heat.

So now your assignment is to calculate how much heat dissipation there is in a typical home and how much heat it will take to raise the temps in the entire home using a *single* heat source. I think you will quickly realize why modern homes have distributed heating (e.g. radiators) rather than a single heat source (e.g. sacrificial fire pit in the living room).
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Originally posted by: toadeater
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
toadeater: The extra heat does have to go somewhere. Are you saying you have your PC isolated so that all of the extra "hot air" goes directly outside? If not, then the PC is still inside your house and proper ventilation will only make sure the room stays cool. There would still have to be every so slightly more work done by an AC unit to keep the room at a constant temperature if there's something increasing the temp in that room.

There is enough heat dissipation in a typical home that a single 100-200W heat source is never going to raise the temperatures in the entire house, or even in an average-sized room. Just having your door open is enough to dissipate that much heat.

So now your assignment is to calculate how much heat dissipation there is in a typical home and how much heat it will take to raise the temps in the entire home using a *single* heat source. I think you will quickly realize why modern homes have distributed heating (e.g. radiators) rather than a single heat source (e.g. sacrificial fire pit in the living room).

Heat is energy. If you are putting something into a closed environment, like a house, that puts out more heat (energy) than something else, then more heat energy is going into the house. In hot weather, this extra heat energy is going to work against the AC unit. I think you misinterpreted what I was saying or I just didn't express myself well enough.

When I was making my argument, I was doing assumptions. This requires some imagination since I don't have the equipment or time to perform tests. I never meant to say that a computer was going to raise the air temperature of a house (which I claimed to be a 6 room house where each room was 4mx4mx8m in size). What I was doing was calculating exactly how much heat energy it would take to actually do this act - of raising the temperature of a house by 1 degree F. In turn, this extra heat energy is equivalent to turning the AC unit down by 1 degree F, since the AC unit has work a little bit harder to "dissipate" the extra heat put off by my argument - the Q6600 vs. the Q9450.

Do you see now? The house's heat dissipation (the AC unit) is going to prevent a single heat source from actually raising the temperature by one degree F. I mean, that is the AC's job, right? I think this point is clearly going way, way over your head: The AC unit still has to work harder to dissipate this extra heat. The heat just doesn't magically disappear from the house, unless you close off the room the computer is in and open a window.

 

tallman45

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,463
0
0
cusideabelincoln


" I was doing assumptions. This requires some imagination "

There is no question that the Q6600 generates, more heat, uses more power, and is slower than a Q9450, there is no assuming these 3 facts

"The house's heat dissipation (the AC unit) is going to prevent a single heat source from actually raising the temperature by one degree F. I mean, that is the AC's job, right?"

Yes it is but it uses electricity to do this job

"close off the room the computer is in and open a window."
Not a viable recommendation in the summer
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Somebody please tell me tallman45 is not really a serious poster. Does he go around flame baiting all the time?

I'm saying this for the first and last time: STOP TAKING MY ARGUMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT YOU FRICKIN' TOOL. Did you fail reading comprehension in school? Did the teachers pass you onto the next grade level out of pity? Are you just a butthole? Are you extremely oblivious? What is the deal? None of your supporting arguments have had any relevance to any of m points. You've just pulled random sentences and started playing dungeons and dragons.

So far, this is how the topic has gone
You: "Q6600 will cost you more in operating costs than a Q9450."
Me: "In two years time, that will not happen."
Me: "Look, here's some factual proof. With numbers! Math is the universal language!"
You: "Don't forget the amount of cloud coverage affects sunlight. Sunlight affects temperature. Clouds will save you money."
Me: "No relevance"
You: "Dogs shed hair when it gets hot"
Me: [face_plain]

 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,268
11
81
Then the little bit of extra heat generated from the Q6600 doesn't matter, since I doubt you're going to run the fan longer than you normally would. In fact if you don't have AC then it actually helps support my argument/debate against tallman64, since the extra heat isn't going to increase the electric bill in hot weather with the AC running. Thus over a two year period the Q6600 is not going to be more expensive to own than a Q9450 would, since the Q9450 currently costs $100+ more. And like I said, during the winter time when you are running a furnace or heater, the Q6600 is going to "aid" the furnace and reduce its workload. Everything is pretty minor, but it can add up under certain circumstances - in which I assumed some "worst case scenarios" and estimated some figures.

But this is getting extremely silly now. There are two many variables. Toadeater, I think you and I can at least agree that a Q6600 is not going to cost the OP more money than the Q9450 such that it ends up being more expensive to own and operate over a two year period. Right?
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Then the little bit of extra heat generated from the Q6600 doesn't matter, since I doubt you're going to run the fan longer than you normally would. In fact if you don't have AC then it actually helps support my argument/debate against tallman64, since the extra heat isn't going to increase the electric bill in hot weather with the AC running. Thus over a two year period the Q6600 is not going to be more expensive to own than a Q9450 would, since the Q9450 currently costs $100+ more. And like I said, during the winter time when you are running a furnace or heater, the Q6600 is going to "aid" the furnace and reduce its workload. Everything is pretty minor, but it can add up under certain circumstances - in which I assumed some "worst case scenarios" and estimated some figures.

But this is getting extremely silly now. There are two many variables. Toadeater, and I think you and I can at least agree that a Q6600 is not going to cost the OP more money than the Q9450 such that it ends up being more expensive to own and operate over a two year period. Right?

My Q6600 is stable at 1.096vcore load and 1.008v idle (according to CPU-Z), down from stock load which was 1.248v (CPU-Z).

I'm idling at 65W for my complete tower (Q6600/4GB DDR2-800/Asus P5Q PRO/3450/750GB 32MB Samsung Spinpoint/PCI DVICO HDTV card), and P95-64bit load doesn't break 119W, according to my Powermate (KillaWatt equivalent in Aus).

I haven't tried stock vcore to see the power difference, but it may be quite significant (at least when I look at load and idle powers in reviews it seems very low).

In email/office use I don't break 70W :)
 

geok1ng

Junior Member
Jun 25, 2008
7
0
0
1- I am really happy to see people working hard to UNDERVOLT their processores and achieve-1.096v at load for a G0 Q6600? Impressive! My rev L2 e4300 reachs 2,66Ghz@1,24v load.

2-Even if the potential power savings are not worth the price difference i must agree with anyone that says that every power saving feature matter for the planet- How low can you undervolt a 45nm quad core at 2,66Ghz?

3- I also dont see a massive benefit from quad cores for gamers on the near future- games are made for the masses hardware ( forget Crysis, only next week we will a VGA that can handle it) and until a quakecon or any other game convention has 50%+ quad-cores i dont expect games that run below 30fps on dual core systems reach 60+fps on quad cores.

4-Putting all the above arguments aside i must agree that the E-penis argument for going quad is impressive and must be taken into account individually. Even when real life results tell us that gaming at 4Ghz on a 45nm dual core is way ahead of gaming at 3,2Ghz on a quad core.

5-Bringing the power savings argument back to topic -even if at low clocks the G0 Q6600 can work with low voltages and compete with the 45nm CPUs, they scale pretty badly when overcloking, another argument in favor of going 45nm.

Reading this topic made me decide that my build will use an E8500 if i can find one in Brazil, not for the max overclok numbers , but for the amazing 3,16 Ghz mark at stocks voltages, it is a promising CPU for undervoltages experiments:evil:
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: geok1ng
1- I am really happy to see people working hard to UNDERVOLT their processores and achieve-1.096v at load for a G0 Q6600? Impressive! My rev L2 e4300 reachs 2,66Ghz@1,24v load.

2-Even if the potential power savings are not worth the price difference i must agree with anyone that says that every power saving feature matter for the planet- How low can you undervolt a 45nm quad core at 2,66Ghz?

3- I also dont see a massive benefit from quad cores for gamers on the near future- games are made for the masses hardware ( forget Crysis, only next week we will a VGA that can handle it) and until a quakecon or any other game convention has 50%+ quad-cores i dont expect games that run below 30fps on dual core systems reach 60+fps on quad cores.

4-Putting all the above arguments aside i must agree that the E-penis argument for going quad is impressive and must be taken into account individually. Even when real life results tell us that gaming at 4Ghz on a 45nm dual core is way ahead of gaming at 3,2Ghz on a quad core.

5-Bringing the power savings argument back to topic -even if at low clocks the G0 Q6600 can work with low voltages and compete with the 45nm CPUs, they scale pretty badly when overcloking, another argument in favor of going 45nm.

Reading this topic made me decide that my build will use an E8500 if i can find one in Brazil, not for the max overclok numbers , but for the amazing 3,16 Ghz mark at stocks voltages, it is a promising CPU for undervoltages experiments:evil:

Ya, G0 stepping.

Makes a ~20W difference at load :)