Intel Cpu choice.

[JPB]

Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
If you think that extra .5 multiplier is going to push Q9550 to 3.8Ghz, then you better have really good cooling. Regardless of multiplier, the CPU will run really hot at this type of speeds over spec. This is one such situation where you'll be burning that chip up as well as juicing it too much to hit 3.8Ghz. Despite what Intel says, all these CPU are really made on the same waffers, and the ones in the middle will have better yield, the ones on the edge will be worse. but overall it's the same design, and can only go so far when pushed.

Yorkies simply don't overclock like Wolfdales can. If Q9450 and Q9550 are the same price, then most definitely get the 9550, but if there's 10% or more difference, ie. $35 or so, you're better off getting @9450 because it'll likely overclock just as well as Q9550 unless you have really good cooling to keep it on the bleeding edge. It's just like over paying for Q6700 over Q6600 and you don't get much more performance, if any.

What a load of BS. Just cause you can't push your yorkfield to 3.8 doesn't mean it's hard.. As long as your board can do 450 FSB stable, it should be no problem at all. You make it sound like its titanic. You can do it on the stock cooler (not that safe, but its possible). The shittiest Yorkfield can do 3.8 Ghz with 1.3v and that doesn't produce a lot of heat at all. Things don't get nasty until you get to 4.0 Ghz territory, that's where you need more juice, that's where things heat up and that's where you need something more than air. But before you worry about that you should worry if your board can even do more than 450 FSB stable with a quad.


OP, if you can wait until the Q9550 drops to 316, I would wait. The extra .5x just means you will have a few hundred megahertz extra on your OC, for the same price. If you can't wait, well then you only have one choice.

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

 

[rgallant]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

or could be one of these :

Everest Ultimate 4.50.1426


- Intel Processor Number detection for Core 2 Duo E7300, E8435, E8700, T5670
- Intel Processor Number detection for Core 2 Quad Q8200, Q9750
- Intel Processor Number detection for Pentium E5200
- Intel Processor Number detection for Xeon X5492
- Intel Processor Number detection for Xeon MP E7420, E7430, E7440, E7450, L7445, L7455, X7450, X7460


-

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

That part is not officially released yet.

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/...learn_proc+c2d_desktop

I wasn't going to open the speculation to future parts as I clearly noted at the end of my post.

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

That part is not officially released yet.

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/...learn_proc+c2d_desktop

I wasn't going to open the speculation to future parts as I clearly noted at the end of my post.

Bah, head over to extreme system forums, there are some people with them already. Pics and everything. They have been selling in several parts of the world, just not in the US yet AFAIK.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/F...howthread.php?t=196394

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

That part is not officially released yet.

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/...learn_proc+c2d_desktop

I wasn't going to open the speculation to future parts as I clearly noted at the end of my post.

Bah, head over to extreme system forums, there are some people with them already. Pics and everything. They have been selling in several parts of the world, just not in the US yet AFAIK.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/F...howthread.php?t=196394

You are missing the point, no one ever said you couldn't purchase E8600's nor was there any suggestion that they aren't available.

But that doesn't make them officially released, and as I alluded to in my post and as rgallant speaks to in his, if you want to open the discussion to forward looking possible processor releases then you have E8700 coming by years end which will no doubt be even faster still.

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: JPB
Yea, Like I posted earlier, I have decided to go with the Q9450. Even though the E8400 overclocks near 4GHZ, I have a feeling that in a year to a year and a half, a overclocked Quad will totally outrun the overclocked dual. So why not ?

Oh, and another thing, what will be the fastest cpu, whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets ?

That would be the Q9770 at 3.2GHz, assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come.

Wrong. It would be the E8600 at 3.33Ghz.

That part is not officially released yet.

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/...learn_proc+c2d_desktop

I wasn't going to open the speculation to future parts as I clearly noted at the end of my post.

Bah, head over to extreme system forums, there are some people with them already. Pics and everything. They have been selling in several parts of the world, just not in the US yet AFAIK.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/F...howthread.php?t=196394

You are missing the point, no one ever said you couldn't purchase E8600's nor was there any suggestion that they aren't available.

But that doesn't make them officially released, and as I alluded to in my post and as rgallant speaks to in his, if you want to open the discussion to forward looking possible processor releases then you have E8700 coming by years end which will no doubt be even faster still.

Then why did you say

"assuming Intel doesn't release an even higher clocked part on LGA775 in the year to come."

It has been obvious for quite some time that the E8600 was coming this year (I just learned about the E8700, if you could post a link whether it is announced to come this year please do so)... so I don't understand why you assumed otherwise. The OP was specifically saying

"whether its dual or quad to use the existing socket 775 before Intel changes sockets"

which made my reccomendation of the E8600 the correct choice until the E8700 was mentioned.

 

[JPB]

Do you all believe that in over a year...that the Quad 9450 will be faster than the E8600 and even the E8700 in most apps and games ?

I'm still going to purchase the Quad, just wondering about the near future for LGA775.

 

[JPB]

Wow, it looks like no one hardly likes the Quad 9300. Any specific reason why it isn't recommended ?

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: JPB
Wow, it looks like no one hardly likes the Quad 9300. Any specific reason why it isn't recommended ?

Very low multiplier, and halved cache. It's the black sheep of quads.

Q9450 or (Q9550 when the price drops) all the way.

 

[JPB]

Almost time to order, so a little more info ?

Been thinking about this somewhat. And while I will probably still go with the Quad 9450......I am just curious as to if I really need it.

I know it would be probably faster than a Dual Core in over a year or so.

But lets just say for kicks...I went with the E8500 or E8600 and purchased aftermarket cooling for it. Overclocked up to 4ghz. Would that not be a excellent cpu in a year compared to a Quad ? Or do you think the quad would still outrun it in intensive tasks ?

I need to find some benchmarks for a E8500 and a Q9450 both overclocked and see how things are. If anyone has any good links, please let me know.



Edit: I removed the Quad 9300 from the poll and added the best dual core Conroe's.

 

[nyker96]

Q9450!

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Well if your intentions are to keep this system for two years, I believe, without any doubt, you should go quad core. For gaming, dual core processors will most likely hold their own because games are still going to be pretty GPU-limited, but you should experience a more responsive system especially if you like having multiple programs and services running at the same time.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: JPB
Do you all believe that in over a year...that the Quad 9450 will be faster than the E8600 and even the E8700 in most apps and games ?

nope.

Maybe 3-5 years with the help of SMT & newer arch & better programmers...

dual cores @ higher ghz win this generation. (of course a quad with equal ghz wins most of the time - like 4ghz dual vs. 4ghz quad). An E0 stepping 45nm quad with a 10,11, or 12x multi for ~ $250 would be a nice buy. LOL. E0 duals are my pick for the remainder of the year.

edit:
The cons of the quad are: price, multiplier, heat, FSB limits, lack of multithreaded support in games & mainstream apps.

The cons of the dual are: 2 missing cores, poor performance in folding & video editing programs (90% of which are multithreaded apps)

The duals are cheaper, cooler, and overclock higher, they give you better mutipliers & higher FSB limitations. They perform equally or faster than a quad because you can generally overclock them higher. If you fire up a game of crysis pitting a 4ghz dual with a 4ghz quad you'll get near identical FPS - like 39 vs. 40. If you ran this comparison and, for example, the quad gave 78, while the dual had 39 - then then paying the 100 dollar premium for the quad would be a no-brainer. Until # of cores makes a greater difference than mhz does in my favorite benchmarks, my vote will remain with the duals (especially the 10x multi E0 stepping cpus).

 

[faxon]

i said e8600 only on the basis that i have seen an e8400 stable at 4.3ghz and with the higher multi you could expect to maybe see 4.6 or even 5ghz if the core can take the extra volts and doesnt spontaneously combust. if you really need a quad later you could get a super high end quad from the last upgrades of the penryn architecture when nehalem is rolling strong for around the price of what an e8200 is now