Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › q9450 v q6700
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

q9450 v q6700 - Page 2

post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by microman View Post
interesting because the 9650 isnt out and at this point is only a rumor
*Haha* Oh man, that was funny! It's the QX9650 guy. Wait, unless the processor in my computer isn't real. Then how am i typ....
FoReVeR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z68-V Pro EVGA GTX 970 SC w/ACX 2.0 16GB(4x4GB) 2133MHz Mushkin Redline Ridgeback 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
2x 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM Samsung 840 EVO SSD 250GB Aopen DVD/CD Burner Sony DVD drive 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Logitech G510 Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouse
Antec 900 Mid-Tower Logitech G500S 
  hide details  
Reply
FoReVeR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-3770K Asus P8Z68-V Pro EVGA GTX 970 SC w/ACX 2.0 16GB(4x4GB) 2133MHz Mushkin Redline Ridgeback 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
2x 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM Samsung 840 EVO SSD 250GB Aopen DVD/CD Burner Sony DVD drive 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Logitech G510 Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouse
Antec 900 Mid-Tower Logitech G500S 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 15
go 9450 definetly
main
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 @ 3.2 GHz Asus P5E-VM HDMI EVGA 9800gtx 2 x 1gb 800mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
250 gb seagate vista home premium sp1 x64 two 17 in samsung microsoft comfort curve 2000 
PowerMouse
600 watt ultra logitech g5 
  hide details  
Reply
main
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 @ 3.2 GHz Asus P5E-VM HDMI EVGA 9800gtx 2 x 1gb 800mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
250 gb seagate vista home premium sp1 x64 two 17 in samsung microsoft comfort curve 2000 
PowerMouse
600 watt ultra logitech g5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 15
I have to agree.
Go with the 45nm.
Frankenputer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6550 3.4 EVGA 780i 3870x2 2x1 Tracer 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160 DVDRW Vista Ultimate 64bit 42 Panasonic 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Yes BFG 800 CM MX518 
Mouse Pad
Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
Frankenputer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6550 3.4 EVGA 780i 3870x2 2x1 Tracer 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160 DVDRW Vista Ultimate 64bit 42 Panasonic 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Yes BFG 800 CM MX518 
Mouse Pad
Yes 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 15
Thread Starter 
I got the q6700 but it wasnt enough now I got the qx9650 and it still isnt enough lol
Who's next
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel core i7 965 Gigabyte x58 extreme on water 2 gtx 295s corsair dominators 3 gig DDR3 1600 mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
velociraptor 300 gigx2 (raid 0) sony bd-rom bdu-xs10s-hp light scribe dvd-rw windows vista 64bit samsung 24"x2, 92" with sim c3x 1080p pj 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
broken hp lol Toughpower 1200 watt cosmos s g5 
  hide details  
Reply
Who's next
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
intel core i7 965 Gigabyte x58 extreme on water 2 gtx 295s corsair dominators 3 gig DDR3 1600 mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
velociraptor 300 gigx2 (raid 0) sony bd-rom bdu-xs10s-hp light scribe dvd-rw windows vista 64bit samsung 24"x2, 92" with sim c3x 1080p pj 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
broken hp lol Toughpower 1200 watt cosmos s g5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceedub View Post
I'm quite surprised that you guys are recommending last generation processors simply on the basis of a higher multiplier and price. The 45nm chips (Q-9450 especially, but the Q-9300 also to a lesser extent), have other qualities which make them worthy of consideration. To begin with, they are optimized for video encoding and processing, and are about 30% faster than the previous generation chips, clock for clock. Also, the 12MB cache of the Q-9450 keeps it ahead of the Q-6600 and Q-6700 in games.

Johnny Bravo at Extreme Systems did a heads-up comparison between the Q6600 and the Q9450 here. I urge you to check that out.
30% would translate to: Q9450 @ 3.6Gz = Q6600 @ 4.68Gz (3.6Gz x 1.3)
Let's use a more realistic gain:
Let's say Q9450 @ 3.6Gz = Q6600 @ 3.8Gz

0.2Gz / 3.6Gz = 5.6%

Q6600 average price: $220
Q6700 average price: $285
Q9300 average price: $275
Q9450 average price: $363

(363 - 220) / 220 = 65% price increase.

So... 65% price increase for 5.6% performance gain (due to Q9450 45nm 12MB L2 cache, or 6MB cache per physical core) (compare to Q6600 8MB L2 cache, or 4MB cache per physical core)

---
I have reviewed the link. It never mentions anything about 30% performance gain, but I did compare the figures and Q9450 is about 4-8% faster in various tests except the 32M Super Pi test where Q6600 is faster.

Conclusion: Q6600 and Q6700 are better choices than Q9450.
Edited by zollen - 5/28/08 at 1:49pm
My Gaming Palace
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 OC @ 3.4Gz EVGA 750i FTW XFX GTX275 Mushkin XP-8500 2GBx2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
OCZ Summit 120GB SSD Samsung 22" LCD Corsair TX650 650W Ultra Aluminus 
  hide details  
Reply
My Gaming Palace
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 OC @ 3.4Gz EVGA 750i FTW XFX GTX275 Mushkin XP-8500 2GBx2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
OCZ Summit 120GB SSD Samsung 22" LCD Corsair TX650 650W Ultra Aluminus 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › q9450 v q6700