Q9300 vs Q9450 benchmarks?

[tamaron]

Hi,
I am waiting for the arrival of the Q9450 to my country(Spain), but it seems the paper launchs are the way to go... ARGHHHH!!!
I am wondering if the Q9300 can fulfill my needs... 3d, sound editing, and solitaire .
I know this one is harder to OC, but I don't plan to make any extreme overclocking, so before to make a decision I want to see some numbers between the Q9300 and the Q9450. I have searching but I don't find anything...
Any thoughts?
THX

 

[Idontcare]

I doubt you'll be unimpressed by the performance of a Q9300 at stock let alone when overclocked. It's already a healthy speed when you got four cores to help you out.

You can piece together some aspects of Q9450 vs. Q9300 by way of reading these two reviews...one is a forum review of Q9450 vs. Q6600 (both at 3.6GHz) while the other is a formal review of Q9300 vs. Q6600 (stock and overclocked).

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=173287

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html

So if you kinda scale the scores in each (this is x% faster than that, etc) you can get some feeling for it. I personally haven't gone to the lengths as I am waiting for someone to finally push out an official review (come on Anand )

 

[tamaron]

Thank you man!

 

[tamaron]

in xbitlabs review, the Q9300 has a 3dMark06 of 3813 and a SuperPi of 19,688 seg.
In ES. at his stock speed the Q9450 has 4391 (rule of three) and a SuperPi of 17,319 seg.
But I think this is almost useless due to differences in mobo, etc and this simplistic approach.
I hope there will be a review soon.

 

[Idontcare]

I agree its hard to draw reasonable conclusions...3DMark will depend heavily on the vid card and SPi will depend heavily on the ram timings and setup.

 

[tamaron]

any news?

 

[harpoon84]

Heres a 3DMark Vantage CPU comparison between a Q9300 and Q9450 (amongst many other CPUs)
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4701/cpuqs2.png

Q9300: 10041
Q9450: 10960

 

[GuitarDaddy]

They are the same chip and will perform identically at the same clock, the only question should be "How much higher can the Q9450 clock?"

If your board is capable and your going to O/C to the limit the difference will be the 1/2 multi or roughly 180-230mhz or a 6.5% advantage for the Q9450.

If you are only going for a moderate overclock on low voltage 3-3.4ghz, you can likely hit that with either chip so the difference would be 0.

 

[harpoon84]

Actually, the Q9450 has 12MB of L2 cache, the Q9300 has 6MB L2.

 

[bryanW1995]

not true, the Q9300 only has 6mb L2 cache instead of 12mb.


lol, beat me to it!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Ahh, didn't know that! Learn something everyday

In that case the difference will be by app, as some are more cache dependent than others but the differences won't be huge. In gaming where cache seems most important the diff with probably be in the 5-10% range clock for clock depending on the game. An area where cache seems to make a nice difference is SuperPI if that matters too you.

 

[Panzer Tiger]

Will the larger cache will help with render times for video editing/compositing?

 

[tamaron]

Thanks 4 the answers!
I don't know if it worth the extra cash... I don't plan to do a big OC... 3-3,2GHz or so, and I will use it as a workstation: 3D rendering and photoshop.
Panzer: I don't know the impact of the extra cahce in video editing... I will try to find something. An ideal comparison would be these two proc's at the same speed.

 

[bryanW1995]

if you want 3.2 then the Q9450 will be much easier. you'll need to oc your ram unless is pc8000 or greater at 3.2 on a Q9300. Just make sure that you keep your eyes peeled for a deal, they're out there.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Panzer Tiger
Will the larger cache will help with render times for video editing/compositing?

Not at all. The CPU (and it's cache) have no idea what's coming next in a video, unlike in a game.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Panzer Tiger
Will the larger cache will help with render times for video editing/compositing?

Does it strike anyone else as being a little "odd" that not one of the major hardware review sites has done a head-to-head comparison between Q9300 and Q9450 and Q6600?

Surely if anyone can get the hardware to do the review it's these guys who are pulling in the ad revenue for people to read the reviews.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Does it strike anyone else as being a little "odd" that not one of the major hardware review sites has done a head-to-head comparison between Q9300 and Q9450 and Q6600?

Surely if anyone can get the hardware to do the review it's these guys who are pulling in the ad revenue for people to read the reviews.

It doesn't seem all that odd to me. I'm pretty sure that, besides the ½X lower multiplier, this is the second coming of the Celeron 300A, quad-core style.

 

[imported_ST]

I have had both now : q9450, q9300, as well as a E3110 (e8400 wolfie). I did not note any big difference in my applications (video editing / encoding / etc.) and they both overclocked the same (3.0GHz @ 1.08V), albeit im sure i could of overclocked my Q9450 more if i pumped more volts. The main difference I saw though, was in temps: my Q9300 was much cooler (typically 15C idle/ 10C load) then my Q9450 according to real temp, and that was the dealbreaker for me (I use it primiarily as a HTPC). YMMV...