• 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 'Yorkfield' Vs Q6600 Vs Q6700 "Kent"

C

clarkey01

Diamond Member
I am looking to replace my core 2 and keep my current MB, which is my best upgrade for the above CPU's?

I game and OC', do a lot of Vmware, so which would be best for me? all will work with my MB right ?

Which has the most OC potential and is it worth the extra few quid ?


Many thanks guys, google was there , but I trust you more.
 
I had a real problem with a 45 nm core, and my P965 board, P5B, so I am getting another board, P5Q.

From what I have seen, the Q930 with the low multiplier is also hard to OC.

I would get the Q6600. The 6700 doesn't do much better than the 6600 and is more $$$
 
As Mark said, Q6600 is the best there. Q6700 is better but it is not worth the premium.

The Q9300 is not a good overclocking chip... the 7.5x multiplier kills overclocking since quads can't hit more than 470-480 FSB at max. The Q6600 is still the best quad by far; IMO at least the only truly superior 45nm chip when oc'ing is taken into account is the Q9550 and higher. Even Q9450 is held back by the multiplier a bit too much.
 
It seems like the price of the Q6600 has gone up instead of down and the price of the Q6700 has remained unchanged for some time. Does anyone think waiting is a good idea or should we buy now? I don't need it immediately, but 45nm is out of the question for my Bad Axe 2.

John
 
Originally posted by: craftech
It seems like the price of the Q6600 has gone up instead of down and the price of the Q6700 has remained unchanged for some time. Does anyone think waiting is a good idea or should we buy now? I don't need it immediately, but 45nm is out of the question for my Bad Axe 2.

John
Click to expand...

It has continued to fall here (I picked one up last weekend 🙂), but regardless intel will just discontinue it rather than prices falling too far I would have thought, since the 9300 is the replacement for the Q6600, and I assume it will be cheaper to produce in the long run.

 
Q6600 remains the price/performance leader. It's a venerable beast.

Q9450 is superior in every way and paired with a new board won't present any FSB problems. Only you can decide if it is worth the 2x premium. IMHO, it is, but it's your call.
 
Well, I would say Q6600 for $185 is a phenomenal cpu! But you'll have to add another $30 or so for a decent cooler. That puts you at $215. Your 3.0ghz C2D is plenty fast for most tasks, so unless you are doing video related work or otherwise using a program that requires 4 cores, your graphics card is the more limiting factor. I would say your system should last well into Q1 2009 and then you can grab nehalem.

If you can sell your OC processor for $140+ or so then it'll be a cheap upgrade I would recommend while the 3.0ghz C2D still has some value in it.

Q9300 @ 3.5ghz vs. Q6600 @ 3.6ghz

For the most part, unless you consider DivX SSE4.1 benefits, Penryn Quads dont offer enough tangible performance per clock cycle over Kentsfield to warrant an upgrade. They do run cooler though and that will translate into lower electricity costs over time. But Q9300 is just too limited by OC. I would wait or Q3 quad core price cuts that are just around the corner - Q9550 at $316 (2.83ghz 12MB cache, high multiplier 🙂)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top