Please educate me

OCBerserker

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2008
3
0
0
I know the new chips are around the corner, and am trying to keep this D 840 running until then, but in case I can't, please educate me on the differences for OC between these models:

Q9450

Q6600

Q6700

E8500

E8400

For example, any stepping prefs, would be great.

I'm open to picking up a new MB as well, so any suggestions you might have for combos would be greatly appreciated. Currently have an EVGA 680i SLI A2 on new bios, BFG 9600GT x2, corsair 5/5/5/18 PC2-6400, I believe a 750W psu (I'm old and forget things :)), Thermaltake Armor case.

I'm interested in getting the new chip as close to 4GHz as I can, primarily for gaming and compiling (yeah, I know this is like saying I need 1000hp for "towing", but I got away with that -- until I took the tow bar off anyway...)

TIA!



(PS the egg has a combo with a 1000W PS from corsair on a 9300 -- worth considering the 9300 for a few extra bucks?)

Also, I wanted to stress that I'm not so much asking for a benchmark list a la Tom's but your experiences with OCing these chips.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
All the quads are capable of about the same max o/c of around 3.5-3.8ghz although the new Q9XX cpus will require a higher FSB and ramspeed because of the lower multi, which may cost you more for mobo and ram. And quads are much harder to cool and require a good aftermarket HSF for even a moderate overclock.

The E8xxx duals will overclock much farther and most should easily hit 4ghz+

Only a couple of games take true advantage of 4 cores, Supreme Commander and MS Flight sim X, unless these are your favorite games an E8XXX dual core will be faster for all other current games. The Quads will excel at heavy multi-tasking, video encoding, 3d redering and other CPU intense apps.
 

akhilles

Senior member
Nov 6, 2007
336
0
0
If I had to do it again, I wouldn't change a thing. E8400@4Ghz is sick.

Q6600 is the best bang for the buck. Can do 3.6ghz on air. Plenty for most every task. However, the only drawback is power consumption - higher than that of 45nm. That translates into more heat. A good cooler is needed for 3.6ghz. E8400 can do 3.6ghz on stock cooling.

If money is no object, get the best. Otherwise, E8400 + a good cooler. Oh and the 680i supports Wolfdales, but not Yorkfields.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
E8400 is a dream for price/performance. Come on...$190 for 4ghz safely on a 45nm dual-core ?

Unless this chip has just turned me into a fanboy so now I am too biased for my opinion to be taken seriously....but I have yet to hear anyone unhappy with it.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
If you are flush with cash: +1 for the e8400

If you want to kick arse with a 50%+ OC, buy an e2200 (11x multi) or an e2180 (10.5 multi) and a nice HSF - put the extra cash in your pocket (or toward your RAM or video card)

Lookee here: THG Game Benchies

Snicker at all the 'Rockefellas' and their $200+ CPUs :p

 

Shortass

Senior member
May 13, 2004
908
0
76
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
E8400 is a dream for price/performance. Come on...$190 for 4ghz safely on a 45nm dual-core ?

Unless this chip has just turned me into a fanboy so now I am too biased for my opinion to be taken seriously....but I have yet to hear anyone unhappy with it.

Q6600 is a dream for price/performance. For the same price you get 2 extra cores, helping a ton with delishy programs such as F@H, massive multitasking, and potential improved future performance.

If you want a dual core I personally wouldn't pay more than for the E7200 or E7300.

Or you could do the expensive and probably wasteful (but attractive) idea of waiting for the massive Q9550 price drop and picking that up. 3.6 will be amazingly easy to reach with the added multi, 45nm coolness, and it should easily last until 32nm Sandy Bridge (or whatever it's called, the greatness to come after Nehalem). Plus, as a secondary rig, the quad core will likely be massively better than any dual core rig in 4 or so years. If we still haven't reached any higher level of multi-core software I will be very sad.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
45nm quads will be a LOT more expensive for the op b/c he will need a new mobo for one. stick to a q6600 if you're not concerned too much about heat/noise, or an e8400 if you are. If you go value, you might also consider an e7200. $133 + 4ghz = yummy!
 

Drsignguy

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,264
0
76
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
45nm quads will be a LOT more expensive for the op b/c he will need a new mobo for one. stick to a q6600 if you're not concerned too much about heat/noise, or an e8400 if you are. If you go value, you might also consider an e7200. $133 + 4ghz = yummy!

+1:thumbsup:

 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,709
15,757
136
The 45 nm quads are hard to OC, and don't do any better than the Q6600.

Now the 45 nm duals seem to do OK, so Q6600 if you need a quad, or E8400 ir you only need a dual.
 

Infrnl

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2007
1,175
0
0
doesnt the q9450 outperform the q6600 even at same clock speeds? I have heard this but not sure if its true.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
yes, clock/clock the q9450 is about 7% faster than q6600. however, it also typically costs $120+ more to buy one, and you're unlikely to get a better OC out of the 9450 than you will out of the 6600. I personally like the 9450 b/c it doesn't run as hot and I live in south tx, but if you're in a cooler climate that shouldn't be a major issue.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,709
15,757
136
I personally like the 9450 b/c it doesn't run as hot and I live in south tx,
And what are your temps ? My ambient is 70f and right now my X3350 is at 60-67c (depending on the core, open case) using an ultra 120 extreme @3520, 1.3 vcore. My Q6600@3550 is at 50-55(antec 900 case), my Q6600@3420 is at 44-48 (Antec 900 case) , and my Q6600@3400 is at 61-70 (open case). I think they run the same temps.

And that Q6600 running 61-70 is the only one not on a true, its a ninja sythe.
 

Infrnl

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2007
1,175
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
yes, clock/clock the q9450 is about 7% faster than q6600. however, it also typically costs $120+ more to buy one, and you're unlikely to get a better OC out of the 9450 than you will out of the 6600. I personally like the 9450 b/c it doesn't run as hot and I live in south tx, but if you're in a cooler climate that shouldn't be a major issue.

Thanks,
I live in Colorado so ambient temps are slightly lower than yours. I am just trying to figure out what would be the best processor to get. I currently have an e6750@3.9 ghz, but think I want to go back to Quad core. Sold my Q6600 and may have made a mistake. Apparently they havent made anything better for the money yet; Figured after a few months they would have something already. I also do not want to spend too much since Nethleham or whatever its called is right around the corner.
The only thing that worries me about the Q9450 is the multiplier and I hear they are really hard to oc to Q6600 levels. In the past i never had a problem getting my Q6600's to 3.6 on air. I have also read that the Q9450 outperforms the Q6600; so thought I would look into getting one or getting the Xeon version. But I guess 7% might not be worth the extra $100 unless I can get a good deal on a used one.
One last thing is I have read that They are supposed to release the Q9400 which will replace the Q9450. Just not sure which way to go?

Q9450: $300 retail
Q6700: $250 retail
Q6600: $200 retail

not sure what used prices currently are; sometimes not much less than new.

INFRNL
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: Markfw900
I personally like the 9450 b/c it doesn't run as hot and I live in south tx,
And what are your temps ? My ambient is 70f and right now my X3350 is at 60-67c (depending on the core, open case) using an ultra 120 extreme @3520, 1.3 vcore. My Q6600@3550 is at 50-55(antec 900 case), my Q6600@3420 is at 44-48 (Antec 900 case) , and my Q6600@3400 is at 61-70 (open case). I think they run the same temps.

And that Q6600 running 61-70 is the only one not on a true, its a ninja sythe.

keep in mind that the Q9450 produces about 40w less heat at load. Even though the temps are the same, the 9450 has a smaller surface area.

by the way, my x3350 is in a 26c ambient room. It's running seti@home right now (as always), currently temps are 63 59 57 57. My Q6600 does have similar temps, but it's in a 23c ambient room (mom's house 1/2 mile down the road) and its using a lapped tuniq instead of a stock unit. Also, the x3350 is at 450x8 with 1.28v load, while the Q6600 is at 393x9 and 1.44v load.

edit: the q9400 will be a 6mb 45nm quad with an 8x multi: basically it's a Q9300 with an extra .5 multi, or you can look at it as a q9450 with 1/2 the L2 missing.
 

M1A

Golden Member
May 27, 2003
1,214
0
0
Another vote here for the E8400 but would like to have a E8500 to play with...................