Originally Posted by Ceedub
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