Oh man...so confused. Q6600, Q9300 or E8400?

[StinkyPinky]

Basically I would like to know which CPU will future proof me the best for the next 36 months on a decent budget?

The Q6600 is older technology and therefore runs the hottest and guzzles the most power right? But it's the same price as the dual core E8400 and you get two extra cores. But 600Mhz slower. What overclock speed can I expect to get this to on stock cooling?

The Q9300 is more expensive so I don't think I'll go for it unless someone tells me it's a hell of a lot better than the 6600. I also noticed the Q6600 has more level 2 cache, and all it seems to lose is 100Mhz to the Q9300. Seems a bit strange that the Q9300 is so much higher in price for a crappy 100Mhz and less cache? What am I missing here?

Also the 8400 compared to the quad cores. Is losing two cores worth it for the extra speed in the dual core? In 24 months can I expect to not make use of the extra two cores in the quad core processes?

 

[ShadowFlareX]

Depends on what you'll be doing on your PC. Dual core is best for gaming, since most games use 2 cores now. Quad core is for rendering, video editting, encoding, the likes.

E8400 is a beast at overclocking, alot of people can hit 4GHz on it, but doesn't mean that you will too, you get the idea.

I don't think you'l miss anything much in the next 24 months with dual core, alot more apps will be dual core optimised by that time.

 

[PeteRoy]

You can't be future proof on budget, you want something to last, you need to get something like the Q9450

 

[tallman45]

Future proof and Q9450 ?

Isn't it being discontinued in Q3 of '08 ? That was a short future

 

[Sylvanas]

I think your best bet would be an 8400. They are a beast when it comes to OCing, 4ghz is a given for most people with adequate cooling, and it will serve you well for the foreseeable future.

 

[Mango1970]

When the G0 Q6600 came out.. that very day I could not decide between that and the newer e6850...dual core. So I bought both. My intention was to get both.. see which I liked... and then sell/give the other way (friends family etc). I ended up using the e6850 for a while and loved it... and never saw the need to go to the Quad. It sat in its box for like 8 months LOL. I then decided to try it out and I never looked back. It's oc'ed to 3.2, runs decently cool with my TRUE, does not consume as much power as some make it out to do. With what I do, it ended up being the best bang really. Right now with the new quads/duals, yes they consume less power, run cooler and can probably OC a bit better but honestly I still can't see a better CPU out there than the Q6600 especially if you already have one. Then again if I had to start from scrath NOW... and had no CPU or a way older one and really did not need quad cores I would easily grab an e8400. It's a no brainer for what you get. If you can wait for a while (think end of June?) for the next round of price cuts, you will save some more coin on the e8400 or for the same money get a faster one.

Even in the next 24 months or so, I still cannot foresee the whole computer software industry embracing multi core systems to the point that a quad core will be what you will need. I still think that quads+ will only be viable if you do a lot of video work audio work... rendering etc as i do. Gaming is still going to be directed at dual cores and again the e8400 will do just fine in that. Even with the work I do, more than half the day I swear that 2 of my 4 cores are getting little exercise if any.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

The Q9300 is more expensive so I don't think I'll go for it unless someone tells me it's a hell of a lot better than the 6600. I also noticed the Q6600 has more level 2 cache, and all it seems to lose is 100Mhz to the Q9300. Seems a bit strange that the Q9300 is so much higher in price for a crappy 100Mhz and less cache? What am I missing here?

Also the 8400 compared to the quad cores. Is losing two cores worth it for the extra speed in the dual core? In 24 months can I expect to not make use of the extra two cores in the quad core processes?

The Q9300 uses less watts at load and is described in a xbits review ~ 100 watts less which would make it easier on your PSU and/but at the same time it has a low mulit of 7.5 - if you want to upgrade now and you were deciding between the 6600 and 9300 i would suggest the 9300 as its a little better clock for clock and uses less watts. The 9400 is right around the corner which i think, but not sure, has a multi of 8, making things a little better. Plus by that time, i think there will be a new stepping out.

What I am wondering is how a Q9300 compares to a E8400 both running 3Ghz. I am about to find out as soon as I get the memory I ordered in. Both are 45nm, 6mb L2 cache. I just have to clock up the fsb to 400 to reach 3Ghz for the comparison.

As far as my 8400 goes, its a great CPU. If you want to save a little money, the 8300 is offered OEM for 164$ at eWiz

 

[RussianSensation]

I'd say bang for the buck, I'd get an Allendale processor such as E2220 Allendale 2.4GHz 1MB $90. Once this is overclocked, it should easily match the top dogs - E2160 @ 3.0ghz vs. Q6600 @ 3.2ghz. I'd put the difference into a faster graphics card (HD 4xxx and GTX are just around the corner) or pocket it towards the next upgrade.

 

[bryanW1995]

there's no need to go with the e2220. get an e2180 and save the $$$ for a future cpu upgrade, it should still oc just as high, esp on stock cooling.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The Q9300 uses less watts at load and is described in a xbits review ~ 100 watts less

Either you misread that review, or someone at xbit didn't know what they were talking about. The Q6600 is a 95 watt CPU, and as far as I know, Intel doesn't make any negative wattage quads.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

my mistake

I think, at the time, i wasn't planning on overclocking my quad so i was comparing what kind of watt consumption difference between an overclocked 9300 & 6600 compared to my 9300 at stock speed

 

[Tempered81]

first pick: e8400

2nd: q6600

lastly: q9300

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The Q9300 uses less watts at load and is described in a xbits review ~ 100 watts less

Either you misread that review, or someone at xbit didn't know what they were talking about. The Q6600 is a 95 watt CPU, and as far as I know, Intel doesn't make any negative wattage quads.

the article he was talking about compared a Q6600 at 3.6 to a Q9300 at 3.5. The Q9300 had better performance by a couple % AND it consumed 70w less under load. I remember the article so well b/c a 9450 was only about 40w better due to the higher cache

btw, at stock speeds there would obviously not be as high of a difference, and most computers don't run 100% load 24/7 unless they're running DC projects.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
the article he was talking about compared a Q6600 at 3.6 to a Q9300 at 3.5. The Q9300 had better performance by a couple % AND it consumed 70w less under load. I remember the article so well b/c a 9450 was only about 40w better due to the higher cache

Ahh, I never read the article, and he didn't link it. I can see a 3.6 Ghz Q6600 using ~70 watts more at full load than a slightly slower Q9300.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
there's no need to go with the e2220. get an e2180 and save the $$$ for a future cpu upgrade, it should still oc just as high, esp on stock cooling.

Fair enough. With E2220 though you have a multipier of 12 which means to reach 4.0ghz you won't even have to overclock the motherboard!

Either of those will be a nice processor for gaming (when OCed)

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, but he's going to be using the stock cooler, so 4 ghz is not in the cards for him. also, 10x400 is a very mild oc at best, so there is little practical benefit to the e2220 for an overclocker unless, 1. the cpus are speed-binned, and 2. he has pc5300 or lower memory.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Thanks guys, I've pretty much decided to get the E8400. I think two fast cores is more benefit to me than 4 slower ones for the next couple of years.

I'm not a massive overclocker, I just tend to do whatever I can get away with on stock. For example, my 3800x2 is running nicely at 2.3Ghz (from 2 ghz) on just stock cooling and is rock solid. It's served me well for 2.5 years nearly, but I've got that itch now and want something new.

So what can I approx get on a 8400 with stock cooling? 3.4?

 

[ShadowFlareX]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
So what can I approx get on a 8400 with stock cooling? 3.4?

With good room temp, 3.4 should be a walk in the park.

 

[cdbular]

get the 8400

 

[M1A]

I have to agree my 8400 serves me very well........

 

[aigomorla]

okey i'll be honest since i own or owned all 3 catigories you are asking.

The E8400 is faster then the Q6600 in gaming. Yes i will admit to this. However if the game is a quad dependant, and quad optimized game, noway the E8400 will win.

Supreme Commander, which is my favorate RTS Game, will require a full blown quad when you max the map and max unit on the AI. 71x71 with 8000 units.

The Quad needed around 3.2ghz to run that smoothly. 400x8. The wolfdale had a hard time keeping up at 4.3ghz.

The wolfdale however owned the quad on other games. It generated less heat, overclocked higher, and drew less wattage. But the gameplay was unnoticaible.

This is why i say the wolfdale is a better cpu in gaming. You get same for less. You cant say the quad is better in that area.


The Q9300, ahhh yorkies. :T
Well, it seems like the yorkie is like playing russian roulet. Averages are fairly okey. However theres 1 bad one in the round. My estimate is 1/10 are bad clockers. 2/10 are great clockers, the rest average. :\

The Q6600 will be my favorate chip. I love it still, more then my QX. Q6600 has a lot of sentimental value to me.

But if i had to pick in terms of timeline + price + feature + overclocking potental.

The Q6600 would win.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
there's no need to go with the e2220. get an e2180 and save the $$$ for a future cpu upgrade, it should still oc just as high, esp on stock cooling.

Fair enough. With E2220 though you have a multipier of 12 which means to reach 4.0ghz you won't even have to overclock the motherboard!

Either of those will be a nice processor for gaming (when OCed)

You're dreaming if you think an E2xxx CPU will reach anywhere near 4.0Ghz. Consider 3.2GHz to be lucky. 3.0Ghz is nearly assured though. Still, a dual-core 3.2Ghz is still beastly for current games.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
there's no need to go with the e2220. get an e2180 and save the $$$ for a future cpu upgrade, it should still oc just as high, esp on stock cooling.

Fair enough. With E2220 though you have a multipier of 12 which means to reach 4.0ghz you won't even have to overclock the motherboard!

Either of those will be a nice processor for gaming (when OCed)

You're dreaming if you think an E2xxx CPU will reach anywhere near 4.0Ghz. Consider 3.2GHz to be lucky. 3.0Ghz is nearly assured though. Still, a dual-core 3.2Ghz is still beastly for current games.

I am not saying it'll necessarily reach 4.0ghz, but if you could, it'd be purely CPU overclocking (not involving ram or mobo). My old E6400 2.13ghz 2mb cache easily clocked at 3.4ghz on a Big Typhoon. I would expect the E2220 2.4ghz with 1mb cache coupled with a better cooler like Xigmatek or TRUE to reach at least 3.6ghz (since smaller cache chips tend to overclock better). Also, the yields have much improved since I bought the E6400 in 2006. My Q6600 from 2007 also easily broke 3.4ghz. I can take it to 3.6ghz but the temperatures get too hot for long-term use.