• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Q9300 vs Q9450

D

ddasilva2000

Junior Member
Hi Everyone,

I am unable to find benchmarks comparing the two chips. Does the extra .1ghz and double L2 cache make a HUGE difference to spend the extra $70?

Thanks,
D
 
Well only you can determine how much you value your time.

If getting things done ~5% quicker day in and day out for a couple years is worth $70 to you then the answer to your question would be yes.

If you don't value your time to the tune of $70, or if you don't expect you'll do anything with your computer that really matters whether you have a quad then the answer would be no.
 
For 70 bucks difference, i'd say yes. the question really is is it worth the 40% more + to go from the 9450 to the 9550..for me? no..
 
I agree.

Based on price/performance...

Going from Q9300 to Q9450 = Yes.
Going from Q9450 to Q9550 = No.

:thumbsup:
 
For $70 more, I'd go with the Q9450. I figure with the higher multi, it'll also be easier to OC than the Q9300.

Now if only they'd just release it already.
 
I agree. Without benchmarks, just on specs alone the 9450 looks like it sits in the sweet spot of bang for buck right now.
If, however, you choose to go with the less expensive chip, consider that the 6600 would most likely be a better bet than the 9300.
Both are about the same price but the 9300 runs 2.5 @ 1333 whereas the 6600 runs 2.4 @ 1066.
You can most likely OC the 6600 to 3 GHz by running it at 1333. Plus the 6600 has 8MB L2 cache to the 9300's meager 6.
 
Originally posted by: papalion
I agree. Without benchmarks, just on specs alone the 9450 looks like it sits in the sweet spot of bang for buck right now.
If, however, you choose to go with the less expensive chip, consider that the 6600 would most likely be a better bet than the 9300.
Both are about the same price but the 9300 runs 2.5 @ 1333 whereas the 6600 runs 2.4 @ 1066.
You can most likely OC the 6600 to 3 GHz by running it at 1333. Plus the 6600 has 8MB L2 cache to the 9300's meager 6.
Click to expand...

True, but if he doesn't OC, then the Q9300 would be better. Just as fast as the Q6600, but less power/heat.
 
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: papalion
I agree. Without benchmarks, just on specs alone the 9450 looks like it sits in the sweet spot of bang for buck right now.
If, however, you choose to go with the less expensive chip, consider that the 6600 would most likely be a better bet than the 9300.
Both are about the same price but the 9300 runs 2.5 @ 1333 whereas the 6600 runs 2.4 @ 1066.
You can most likely OC the 6600 to 3 GHz by running it at 1333. Plus the 6600 has 8MB L2 cache to the 9300's meager 6.
Click to expand...

True, but if he doesn't OC, then the Q9300 would be better. Just as fast as the Q6600, but less power/heat.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Q9450 have a higher multiplier than Q9300? Given the overclock capability of QX9650...my money is on Q9450 clocking to higher core frequency than Q9300 (as both will be FSB limited in their overclocks)
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: papalion
I agree. Without benchmarks, just on specs alone the 9450 looks like it sits in the sweet spot of bang for buck right now.
If, however, you choose to go with the less expensive chip, consider that the 6600 would most likely be a better bet than the 9300.
Both are about the same price but the 9300 runs 2.5 @ 1333 whereas the 6600 runs 2.4 @ 1066.
You can most likely OC the 6600 to 3 GHz by running it at 1333. Plus the 6600 has 8MB L2 cache to the 9300's meager 6.
Click to expand...

True, but if he doesn't OC, then the Q9300 would be better. Just as fast as the Q6600, but less power/heat.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Q9450 have a higher multiplier than Q9300? Given the overclock capability of QX9650...my money is on Q9450 clocking to higher core frequency than Q9300 (as both will be FSB limited in their overclocks)
Click to expand...

True, but I was talking about no overclocking.

For overclocking, I think it will be Q9450 > Q9300, but it depends on what you want to do, for where the Q6600 fits in.

For those wanting ~3.6-ish only OC's, then go with the Q9450 since it draws less power, is cooler, and is a bit faster clock for clock. For these "average" OC's the FSB limitation won't be a problem.

For those wanting ~4Gig+ (or at least try for it 😀 ), the Q6600 with it's higher multi will be better. OF course, having water or other high-end cooling will help.

Personally, I'd fall into the Q9450, and shoot for 3.6-ish with good temps (and quiet low speed fans) and lower power, but that's just me.

 
i really wished i didnt grab an nvidia board, im pretty sure my board wont even do the 1333fsb on these let alone boot properly
 
Relax TC91, your 680i board should be able to hit 400.

That would put you at 3.0GHz (400 x 7.5)...which isn't too shabby at all.
At least, look at it this way, ANY Core 2 Quad @ 3GHz...would NOT be the bottleneck in your system.

Edit: I mean after all, you are doing 378 now with your dual....:thumbsup:
 
dont mean to hijack the thread, but arent 680i boards completely useless or incompatible with the 45nm quads? my latest bios update only provides support for the 45nm dual core wolfdale cpus.
 
Originally posted by: TC91
dont mean to hijack the thread, but arent 680i boards completely useless or incompatible with the 45nm quads? my latest bios update only provides support for the 45nm dual core wolfdale cpus.
Click to expand...

Yes its true, i680 + Yorkfield (45nm quads) = FTL
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: TC91
dont mean to hijack the thread, but arent 680i boards completely useless or incompatible with the 45nm quads? my latest bios update only provides support for the 45nm dual core wolfdale cpus.
Click to expand...

Yes its true, i680 + Yorkfield (45nm quads) = FTL
Click to expand...

Hmm...didn't really think of that...my bad...

Have they discontinued BIOS support for the 680i chipsets?
If they haven't, then maybe there is still hope (given that they now support the duals).
 
Originally posted by: Cheex
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: TC91
dont mean to hijack the thread, but arent 680i boards completely useless or incompatible with the 45nm quads? my latest bios update only provides support for the 45nm dual core wolfdale cpus.
Click to expand...

Yes its true, i680 + Yorkfield (45nm quads) = FTL
Click to expand...

Hmm...didn't really think of that...my bad...

Have they discontinued BIOS support for the 680i chipsets?
If they haven't, then maybe there is still hope (given that they now support the duals).
Click to expand...

It's a hardware issue with existing i680 boards. The mobo's can be wired to support 45nm Yorkfields but its not a software or BIOS thing. Theoretically a new i680 mobo could be made which is wired to correctly support them, but no one is doing that as they'd rather sell you an i780 board wired correctly for better price premium.
 
True, the 9450 has a higher multiplier than the 9300. They both run on the same FSB but the 9450 is clocked higher.

However, the 6600 has a higher multiplier than both because it is clocked at 2.4 GHz on a FSB of 1066, while the 9300 runs @ 2.5 on 1333. Do the math.

Of course this is all irrelevant if you're not looking to OC. If you are, though, the 6600 is probably the most overclockable of the three, provided you can figure out how to keep it cool.

As for me, I plan on going with the 9450 when and if it comes out because I plan on slapping that baby on a MB with a 1600MHz FSB.
My humble opinion:
9450>9300 - because of extra L2 cache.
9450 not >9550 - because the extra few MHz not worth the large price differential
6600 not for me because I'll never get it to run stable at anywhere near 1600; lucky if I don't burn it @ 1333.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top