45nm Quad: Not a good investment, yet. - Page 5 - Overclock.net

*NuclearCrap* · 01-23-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by R3ap3R

It's $539 @ newegg

We were talking about the Q9550.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lu(ky

Great thread Nuclear you are dead on. You can buy a QX6850 on ebay for around $600-$700.00 which is not a bad deal. I was wondering if using a mobo with DDR3 will it help a Q6600 OC better? Intel likes playing MONOPOLY with our money $$$

DDR3 won't help much if the board can't handle the FSB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmhnc

Like it's been said already, Penryn is just a die shrink where as Nehalem is designed as 45nm from the very beginning. This is the cpu I'm waiting for.
Memory controller integration into the silicon die. Up to eight cores and 16 threads. This will be the" must have" cpu.

Yes it's been said, in lengths as long as your post. That's why so much people on here didn't bother with the thinking process and instead go post a bunch of "should I buy this" and "should I get that" threads all related to 45nm. I just hope all of them would actually come a read this before filling up all the server's HDD space with these repetitive questions.

And thanks all.

iandh · 01-23-08

Other than power consumption I can't see any logical reason for switching my rig before Nehalem.

secretsexyninja · 01-24-08

I hate to beat a dead horse... and I know this is been talked about some in this thread....

but should i wait for the new q9450 quad? go with the q6600? or one of the new duos thats out? I have about $350 tops i wanna spend on my CPU. Ill overclock it but 3dmark etc really doesnt matter to me. i want it to be great for gaming / photoshop / video editing.

What should I do?

btw is there really THAT much of a difference between duo and quad? I mean ill have this PC at LEAST until nehalem comes out.. probably even after that.

NCspecV81 · 01-25-08

upon further reflection it does appear that the wolfdale would be the best purchase right now.

YeaBaby · 01-25-08

I agree that for now the 65nm Quads are a better choice due to the higher multi's. However the 45nm dual core's are a better choice over the Conroe 65nm chips due to higher multi's at a reasonable price (E8500 anyone) and the probability of being able to get 4Ghz. out of em. Just my 2 cents.

R3ap3R · 01-25-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by YeaBaby

I agree that for now the 65nm Quads are a better choice due to the higher multi's. However the 45nm dual core's are a better choice over the Conroe 65nm chips due to higher multi's at a reasonable price (E8500 anyone) and the probability of being able to get 4Ghz. out of em. Just my 2 cents.

I'm just glad they made the 45's stick to the LGA 775 socket.....

secretsexyninja · 01-25-08

im going dual core then!

BTK · 01-25-08

Q9450 will be very good investment>q6600

most wolfdales hit 4 GHz easily with low VID's

and check the yorkfield vs quad 3.6 gzh thread

the yourkfield beats it clock for clock by a good margin

secretsexyninja · 01-25-08

think so? sure itll run cooler / use less heat.. but when youre stuck with the lower multiplier you are limited with how much you can overclock. seems to me id rather go for a q6600 if i were interested in a quad. unless youre all about some nickels and quarters for your electric bill

BTK · 01-25-08

thats why we have P35/x38 boards that do higher fsb.......

same thing was said about e6700 vs e6750

x9 multi for x8 multi

but with the fsb we can do its no problem

01-25-08	#44 (permalink)
NCspecV81 New to Overclock.net Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,156 Rep: 137 Unique Rep: 109 Trader Rating: 11	upon further reflection it does appear that the wolfdale would be the best purchase right now. __________________ Personal Best Dual Core 3dmark06 - 23,627 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7910119

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel CPUs
45nm Quad: Not a good investment, yet.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)