Q6600 or Q9300 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I am in the market for a new PC (building it myself) and I saw that the Q9300 came out. I was going to get the Q6600 G0 and an Abit IP35 Pro or EVGA 780i with a TRUE. I was planning to overclock. My question is, should I get the Q9300 or Q6600 for overclocking. How much cooler is the Yorkfield than the Kentsfield in this case? How far can I push the Q9300 with a 7.5x multi? I don't really want to shell out an extra $100 for a Q9450. Does the cache matter (Q6600 w/8MB vs Q9300 w/6MB vs Q9450 w/12MB)? Thanks for the help.
cyborg939 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:29 PM
Back on the Air
 
losttsol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 7,702
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Q6600 would be a better bet for overclocking. If you do get a Q9300, you'll need to invest in some faster RAM for sure.
losttsol is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:30 PM
1.7ghz
 
scottish_jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 5
im trying to decide which of these processors to get also, im sure I read that the q6600 is more overclockable due to the higher multiplier but dont quote me on that.... but the q9300 is 45nm, does this make a difference?
scottish_jason is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:30 PM
2.4ghz
 
QuickS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The Q6600 is a much better choice. The main reasons being that the Q6600 is cheaper, very easy to get to 3.6GHz, and has more cache. If you were to get the Q9300 than you would have to spend even more money on RAM and more money on a motherboard due to the fact that theres no way that a standard P35/780i motherboard or standard DDR800 RAM could take the Q9300 up to 3.6GHz (480FSB). Also, from what I have been reading on the xtreme forums a lot of the Q9300's have a FSB wall at around 460mhz.
QuickS is offline  
post #5 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:31 PM
1.7ghz
 
System32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish_jason View Post
im trying to decide which of these processors to get also, im sure I read that the q6600 is more overclockable due to the higher multiplier but dont quote me on that.... but the q9300 is 45nm, does this make a difference?
Yes its a much smaller manufacturing process, which supposedly will always reduce the amount of cooling it will need or basically allow the higher overclocks.
System32 is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:32 PM
4.0ghz
 
linskingdom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In Office
Posts: 14,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 3468
Personally, I would go for 9x Q6600. That 7.5x Q9300 is really putting pressure on ram and board etc not to mention the vcore issue (we know 1.36 for 45nm dual, what's the max for 45nm quad?? wait to see). Regarding the cache, more cache is always good but I think 6 to 8mb cache should be fine in most cases.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...uad-q9300.html
linskingdom is offline  
post #7 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:35 PM
 
gibsonnova74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by linskingdom View Post
Personally, I would go for 9x Q6600. That 7.5x Q9300 is really putting pressure on ram and board etc not to mention the vcore issue (we know 1.36 for 45nm dual, what's the max for 45nm quad?? wait to see). Regarding the cache, more cache is always good but I think 6 to 8mb cache should be fine in most cases.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...uad-q9300.html
i second this!

edit: not to mention the prices have started to drop on the Q6600's. its not uncommon to see them on sale for $189.99 or $199.99!

10 Million+ Folding at Home points 

gibsonnova74 is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 03:37 PM
3.5ghz
 
sc30317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I have the combo you were looking at (IP-35 Pro and Q6600), and its never slowed me down. Definitely go with that combo

sc30317 is offline  
post #9 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 06:07 PM
Grumpy
 
joemaniaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boulder
Posts: 8,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 776
The best question to ask, is whether you want a Q9450 or a Q6600, not the Q9300 because of the lower cache. However, if you go with a Q9450 and you want to OC the crap out of it, get an intel x38/48. If you get an nvidia 780i, then you are going to need that x9 multiplier just to get to 3.6 ghz.

joemaniaci is offline  
post #10 of 17 Old 04-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Finally! A custom title.
 
BizzareRide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 6,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 263
q9300 is faster clock for clock than a q6600 but its more expensive to own. To get the most out of it, you'll need a high-end MB and RAM.

LGA 1155 Owners Club
BizzareRide is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off