Q6600 Vs Q9400?

Which is better? I would overclock to 3.4Ghz.

Considering the Q9400 is a 45nm processor, it is faster clock for clock, the Q6600's multiplier of 9 makes it easy to overclock however, what's the multiplier on the Q9400?

Considering the Q9400 is a 45nm processor, it is faster clock for clock, the Q6600's multiplier of 9 makes it easy to overclock however, what's the multiplier on the Q9400?

Marfoo

So which one shall i go for

So which one shall i go for

waqster

4Gb Corsair 800Mhz

4Gb Corsair 800Mhz

waqster

For a 3.4 ghz oc = 425x8=3400

so your ram runs at 850 mhz, which is a bit out of spec, but corsair ram is prretty good, so it shouldn't have any trouble. If you want to go farther in your overclock, you might have to loosen the timings on your ram.

So you'd reckon i'd get a 3.4Ghz on a Tuniq 120? What temperatures do you think i would get

So you'd reckon i'd get a 3.4Ghz on a Tuniq 120? What temperatures do you think i would get

waqster

q6600, very easy to overclock

Problem is that I want future proofing. How long until games support multi-threading?

Problem is that I want future proofing. How long until games support multi-threading?

waqster

So i should go with teh q9400 then?

So i should go with teh q9400 then?

waqster

I think I would go with a quad with 12mb cache instead like the q9550.

I would go with the Q9400, I haven't read up on them much so I'm not sure how well they OC but it will run cooler. From what I hear the recent (for a while now, really) don't overclock as well as the older Q6600s. Although the Q6600 has more cache. I would consider spending the extra money on a Q9550.

In fact there is no way I would take a Q6600 over a Q9400.

Hi Ya if you want to push a quad on overclock you might want to get a

ThermalRight 120 Ultimate Extreme(True). For a Core 2 Duo overclock,

A Xigmatek Dark Knight would probably do the job for less cost.

What the hell is a Noctua Push-Pull?

Looks like it get's great cooling.

EDIT - nvm- I got it mixed up with the Thermalright symbol.

Hi Ya if you want to push a quad on overclock you might want to get a

ThermalRight 120 Ultimate Extreme(True). For a Core 2 Duo overclock,

A Xigmatek Dark Knight would probably do the job for less cost.

sihunt

A True is a good choice if you plan on lapping and pressure modding it, if not there are better options. The base is really bad andthe mounting systems might even be worse. I'm hearing really good things about the Megahalens, but don't plan on running it in push pull.

It's a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, btw.

Doesent the Q6600 have more cache?

Doesent the Q6600 have more cache?

Daytona_178

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Doesent the Q6600 have more cache?

Marfoo

If anything it's slower clock for clock because of the smaller cache. All it is is a die shrink and it has 25% less cache in some circumstances. The Q6600 has 4mb of cache for each die and the Q9400 has 6mb of shared l2 cache so single threaded apps can have more cache on the Q9400. Kind of like how a GTX285 is no faster clock for clock than a GTX280.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Doesent the Q6600 have more cache?

artiedeadat40

If anything it's slower clock for clock because of the smaller cache. All it is is a die shrink and it has 25% less cache in some circumstances. The Q6600 has 4mb of cache for each die and the Q9400 has 6mb of shared l2 cache so single threaded apps can have more cache on the Q9400. Kind of like how a GTX285 is no faster clock for clock than a GTX280.

LINK

Notice the Q9300 outperforms the Q6600 eventhough it is outclocked by 100MHz. This is due to the architectural changes they made going from 65nm to 45nm.

[QUOTE="artiedeadat40"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"] The Q6600 has more cache, but the Q9400 is faster clock for clock. I have the Q9300 and when I looked up a review, they down clocked it to match a Q6600 and it outperformed it clock for clock despite have 2MB less of cache.Marfoo

If anything it's slower clock for clock because of the smaller cache. All it is is a die shrink and it has 25% less cache in some circumstances. The Q6600 has 4mb of cache for each die and the Q9400 has 6mb of shared l2 cache so single threaded apps can have more cache on the Q9400. Kind of like how a GTX285 is no faster clock for clock than a GTX280.

LINK

Notice the Q9300 outperforms the Q6600 eventhough it is outclocked by 100MHz. This is due to the architectural changes they made going from 65nm to 45nm.

In one test that isn't even widely accepted as a standard benchmark by what looks like nothing more than a margin of error. Flip to the next page of your very same link for some media encoding, results look a little different to me. Show me some cinebench, wprime, or 3dmark. Do you think that I've never seen a comparison between these chips? The cache it distributed between the cores differently and the die size is smaller but thats it. What architectural changes are you talking about?

EDIT: You may want to read the testing setup in you links. Seems to explain some things.

When we tested Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor at 266MHz FSB frequency, the memory worked as DDR3-1066 with 6-6-6-15 timings, because contemporary chipsets do not support higher memory frequency dividers.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]

[QUOTE="artiedeadat40"]

If anything it's slower clock for clock because of the smaller cache. All it is is a die shrink and it has 25% less cache in some circumstances. The Q6600 has 4mb of cache for each die and the Q9400 has 6mb of shared l2 cache so single threaded apps can have more cache on the Q9400. Kind of like how a GTX285 is no faster clock for clock than a GTX280.

LINK

Notice the Q9300 outperforms the Q6600 eventhough it is outclocked by 100MHz. This is due to the architectural changes they made going from 65nm to 45nm.

In one test that isn't even widely accepted as a standard benchmark by what looks like nothing more than a margin of error. Flip to the next page of your very same link for some media encoding, results look a little different to me. Show me some cinebench, wprime, or 3dmark. Do you think that I've never seen a comparison between these chips? The cache it distributed between the cores differently and the die size is smaller but thats it. What architectural changes are you talking about?

So to sum it up, I should go with teh Q9400?

If you are only looking to get up to 3.4GHz, the Q9400 will be faster (although only marginally). However, because the Q6600 has a higher multiplier you won't have to push your FSB as high to get that point or beyond it.

What kind of motherboard are you planning on getting?

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/145368 or

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/145751

BTW will teh tuniq tower be sufficent for 3.4Ghz?

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/145368 or

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/145751

BTW will teh tuniq tower be sufficent for 3.4Ghz?

thanks dude

thanks dude

waqster

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="artiedeadat40"]

In one test that isn't even widely accepted as a standard benchmark by what looks like nothing more than a margin of error. Flip to the next page of your very same link for some media encoding, results look a little different to me. Show me some cinebench, wprime, or 3dmark. Do you think that I've never seen a comparison between these chips? The cache it distributed between the cores differently and the die size is smaller but thats it. What architectural changes are you talking about?

artiedeadat40

Your link proves nothing. I can't even find which settings the Q6600 is using for it's overclocked results. Honestly this review is questionable at best and your second link makes no mention of Kentsfield. I have seen no proof that a Yorkfield is clock for clock faster than Kentsfield. I would love to know about these architectural changes you are talking about as well specificly.

What the hell is a Noctua Push-Pull?

Netherscourge

This is a Noctua heatsink with fans mounted to both the front and back i.e a heatsink sandwiched by two fans. One fan pushes air into the heatsink and the other pulls air from the heatsink thus ensuring fast unidirectional airflow.