Which Core 2 Quad

[TLW]

Trying to figure out which CPU to put in my new rig

It seems the Q6600 has been discontinued in the UK, and it runs hotter than the 45nm processors so i'm looking at a few others

I'll be installing an aftermarket cooler for reasons of noise so overclocking is definately a possibility, but i'm trying to weigh up several CPUs in terms of likely performance with some gentle OCing

2.66GHz Q6700 OEM - £148.99 (Retail boxed = £203)
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148900

2.33GHz Q8200 Retail - £150.91
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148933

2.66GHz Q9400 Retail - £186.50
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148545

My head is saying get the OEM 6700 and fit a decent cooler

Any comments?

 

[hclarkjr]

going by your 3 choices you have listed i would spend the few extra pounds and get the Q9400

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
going by your 3 choices you have listed i would spend the few extra pounds and get the Q9400

can i ask why? from what i can see it has a smaller L2 cache and a higher FSB speed, i've heard lots of discussion regarding the cache but not so much of how the FSB speed affects the performance of the chip.

do the Q9x00 overclock better than the "lower" series?

 

[hclarkjr]

well the FSB is key, what is the first thing you do with a Q6600\Q6700 when you get it? you overclock the FSB to 1333 so why not get a chip that is at that FSB to start with?

 

[hclarkjr]

plus you mention about the Q6600 running hotter because it is 65nm, the Q6700 is the same die size

 

[EvilBob]

a few general responses:

clock for clock, the Yorkfields are reportedly a tiny bit (few %) faster than the Kentsfields.

You mention noise - the Yorkfield is also a smaller process, so it should draw less power at the same speeds, generating less heat, causing less fan noise...

And yes, a smaller process / cooler chip would be expected to OC at least marginally better.

That said, ye olde Luck could send you a chip that OCs better or worse than you would typically expect.

Personally, at double the L2, I'd hold out for a 9450 over the 9400 - especially if you can luck onto one with E0 stepping. Then again, if you're on a budget and are getting aftermarket cooling anyway, go for the Q6700 - unless you're really wanting to push really hard on the OC, you'd virtually never notice the difference, and you'll be itching for a i7 upgrade soon enough, anyway!

 

[TLW]

hmm, scan seem to be doing the Q9450 OEM for about £20 more than the Retail 9400

Sounds like a more solid bet - Yorkfield core with 12MB cache and the 1333MHz FSB

I'm not planning on upgrading to the i7 any time soon, still running an old 3500+ A64 so i'm sure the Core2 will feel a bit faster then that, and hopefully should provide enough grunt for the next couple of years at least...

 

[hclarkjr]

you did not have the 9450 listed but if that is there get it you are getting after market cooler anyhow, right?

 

[Lonyo]

There are Q6600's still around, but they are just not all that cheap

 

[EvilBob]

your pricing is a bit confusing to me, too - I wouldn't have expected a retail Q6700 to be more expensive than a retail Q9400.

you did not have the 9450 listed

yup - I'm naughty and added something else!

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you did not have the 9450 listed but if that is there get it you are getting after market cooler anyhow, right?

yep, sorry about that...

should have said i wasn't averse to shelling out a little more for a product that is worth paying extra for

about the pricing, i don't know how they work it out, all supply and demand and stock and a million other factors - ebuyer prices change in real time, by tomorrow it might be less, who knows

looks like the 9450 is a winner - bring on fallout 3...

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
well the FSB is key, what is the first thing you do with a Q6600\Q6700 when you get it? you overclock the FSB to 1333 so why not get a chip that is at that FSB to start with?

What the hell man? You get a Q6600 and take its FSB to 1333 and that gives you 2997 mhz.
You take a Q9400 with its FSB running at 1333 with a frequency of 2660 mhz and with 6 mb opposed to 8 mb of level 2 cache, that the Q6600 has. So, guess who is faster? The chip that already has 1333mhz fsb or the overclocked one? There is no sense in what you said, really.

The FSB is not the "key". The cache and core clock are more important.

 

[Tullphan]

I've got a Q6700.
The best i've done without making my voltage ridiculous is 3.33ghz on air.
Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Denithor]

Let me build on what error8 said.

Speed and cache are what are important for quads. Raw speed is obvious why. The 45nm chips make more efficient use of their cache than the older 65nm chips do. For example, the e7200 (2.53GHz, 3MB cache) can basically match an e6750 (2.66GHz, 4MB cache) in nearly everything, even with less cache & slightly lower speed. By the same note the Q9400 will be faster than the Q6700 at stock speeds; the 45nm chip will also use less energy, run cooler, and should overclock a bit better.

Read this article that compares these chips: Q9400, Q9300, Q8200, Q6600, X4 9950 and E8600. Well worth ten minutes reading before spending that kind of cash.

Finally, are you sure you need a quad? If you're mostly gaming you'll see better performance from a faster clocked dual core (as shown in the benchmarks in that article, most games do not fully take advantage of four cores). A cool-running e8400 will be so much faster than your 3500+ you'll be amazed...

 

[TLW]

Originally posted by: DenithorFinally, are you sure you need a quad? If you're mostly gaming you'll see better performance from a faster clocked dual core (as shown in the benchmarks in that article, most games do not fully take advantage of four cores). A cool-running e8400 will be so much faster than your 3500+ you'll be amazed...

thanks for the explanation and the link

i'd prefer to go quad core simply for the fact that it's going to be a few years before i'm looking to seriously upgrade this rig with a new CPU/mobo again, i'll probably replace the GFX card and perhaps increase ram in 18mth or so and i'd prefer not to have to upgrade the CPU at the same time as it will almost certainly involve a mobo and ram update, it seems quad core is the way things are headed for the future

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: TLW
it seems quad core is the way things are headed for the future

True. (Multi-core)

 

[Gillbot]

price difference looks minimal between the three, go for the best.

 

[Tullphan]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
price difference looks minimal between the three, go for the best.

Which is..... (in your humble opinion)??
I've just received an e-mail from the Retail Edge program. It seems the chip they're going to offer this year is the Q9300. I don't know if i'll be interested in that or not, however.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
well the FSB is key, what is the first thing you do with a Q6600\Q6700 when you get it? you overclock the FSB to 1333 so why not get a chip that is at that FSB to start with?

What the hell man? You get a Q6600 and take its FSB to 1333 and that gives you 2997 mhz.
You take a Q9400 with its FSB running at 1333 with a frequency of 2660 mhz and with 6 mb opposed to 8 mb of level 2 cache, that the Q6600 has. So, guess who is faster? The chip that already has 1333mhz fsb or the overclocked one? There is no sense in what you said, really.

The FSB is not the "key". The cache and core clock are more important.

I laughed as well when I read that one lol.

 

[Gillbot]

I'd go for the Q9400. 45nm and cooler at stock speed.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Tullphan

Originally posted by: Gillbot
price difference looks minimal between the three, go for the best.

Which is..... (in your humble opinion)??
I've just received an e-mail from the Retail Edge program. It seems the chip they're going to offer this year is the Q9300. I don't know if i'll be interested in that or not, however.

Q9300 would be nice if the price is right. Keep in mind that in retail the Q9400 is only $20 more, well worth it IMO (if buying retail). You should be able to easily hit 3GHz with DDR2-800, go for DDR2-1000 if you want to push above that speed.

 

[TLW]

well things took a twist today

happened to be browsing fleabay and picked up a Q9550 for £190, retail, BNIB, just a few minutes ago got the confirmation and shipping number so it'll be here friday

Seemed to perform consistently better than the 9450 in all benchmarks and has the slight additional headroom of the 8.5x multiplier, and if it "only" OCs as well as the 9450 i've lost nothing because it was cheaper than i could source a 9450 anyway

so with that ordered i had to buy the rest of the rig, nothing quite like blowing £600 on new kit...

thanks for all the replies folks, been a great help figuring out the maze

 

[dwhore]

Originally posted by: TLW
Trying to figure out which CPU to put in my new rig

It seems the Q6600 has been discontinued in the UK, and it runs hotter than the 45nm processors so i'm looking at a few others

I'll be installing an aftermarket cooler for reasons of noise so overclocking is definately a possibility, but i'm trying to weigh up several CPUs in terms of likely performance with some gentle OCing

2.66GHz Q6700 OEM - £148.99 (Retail boxed = £203)
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148900

2.33GHz Q8200 Retail - £150.91
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148933

2.66GHz Q9400 Retail - £186.50
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/148545

My head is saying get the OEM 6700 and fit a decent cooler

Any comments?

I just looked on the same site.

They now have the Q6600 in stock

Q6600 2.4GHz 1066 FSB 8MB cache retail G0 stepping £149

given that it's to replace my existing E6600 with aftermarket fan, surely I should go for the Q6700 OEM?

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: TLW
well things took a twist today

happened to be browsing fleabay and picked up a Q9550 for £190, retail, BNIB, just a few minutes ago got the confirmation and shipping number so it'll be here friday

Seemed to perform consistently better than the 9450 in all benchmarks and has the slight additional headroom of the 8.5x multiplier, and if it "only" OCs as well as the 9450 i've lost nothing because it was cheaper than i could source a 9450 anyway

so with that ordered i had to buy the rest of the rig, nothing quite like blowing £600 on new kit...

thanks for all the replies folks, been a great help figuring out the maze

good for you :thumbsup:

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: TLW
well things took a twist today

happened to be browsing fleabay and picked up a Q9550 for £190, retail, BNIB, just a few minutes ago got the confirmation and shipping number so it'll be here friday

Seemed to perform consistently better than the 9450 in all benchmarks and has the slight additional headroom of the 8.5x multiplier, and if it "only" OCs as well as the 9450 i've lost nothing because it was cheaper than i could source a 9450 anyway

so with that ordered i had to buy the rest of the rig, nothing quite like blowing £600 on new kit...

thanks for all the replies folks, been a great help figuring out the maze

Great stuff!

8.5 multi gives you a bit more headroom.

With a good cooler & mobo, you'll be doing 3.8+ GHz