Q6600 vs Q9450 vs Q9300 or wait?

[Victor]

I am having a hard time deciding to whether or not to upgrade to the quad core. With the Q9450 looming, I was thinking of upgrading to that CPU. Howver, the Q9450 costs like 350 (plus tax and shipping) while once the Q9450 is out, the Q6600 will drop to the price close to $200. For the difference of teh $150, is it worth to upgrade to the Q9450? Maybe the Q9300 would be a better choice but that is still like 100 more expensive than the Q6600.

Should i upgrade or should I hold onto my dual core and wait for the Nehalem before upgrading to the quad core?

decision, decision, decisoin. So hard. What do you guys think?

[tyle6]

I'm trying to figure out what i am about to do myself. I have a rig fully set up waiting for my dualcore though( just running of an old P4 for now) so the waiting for nahelem is out of the question for me, as my 680i soon to be 780i(evga upgrade) is gonna need a proccy too.
My plan was to drop a 9450 in the 780i when they hit the streets, but depending on benchmarks/price drop on the q6600 I may just go that way myself.

[Sadasius]

Depends on the setup too. Here is my pro's and con's for the Q6600 and the Q9450.

Pros:

1) The Q9450 has good performance and efficiency and can be overclocked really well. This is good for a water loop because it does not give unnecessary heat into the loop warming other components by as much as an extra 10C compared to the Q6600 on the same overclock.

2) The Front side bus is bigger and cache is 12mb for the Q9450.

Cons:

1) Price difference.

2) Multiplier is at X8 max instead of X9 of the Q6600. Which means you will need a really good motherboard where you can get into the 500's for that high overclock and performance boost.

[darkorb]

As Kougar has said before, the Nahalem is a diff CPU/Mobo socket etc..

[alfhenrik]

I'd go the Q9450, or at least that's what I'm planning on doing at the moment...even though they are limited to a multiplier of 8...and seeing as I'd have to get a new mobo to upgrade to it, hopefully the initial price will have gone down a bit.

[Methious]

I'm in the same quandary, new socket platform coming early next year, I'd hate to be setting on a dead or dying platform when they come out. On the other hand I'm tired of not being able to OC like a demon on an AMD platform that has let me down in performance comparisons.

I'm figuring tough it out until the new platforms hit. If their affordable enough get the new platform. If their not then the 775s might drop enough to be worth the wait.

That's all dependant on my ability to stave of the techno-lust factor. :help:

[PP Mguire]

That 6400 @ 3.52 should be plenty for anything your doing. For most users quad cores are still useless so getting an e8400 would be more worth it. Try to remember this. For the average joe user (and even the gamer) having a quad core only means having a bigger e-penis.

[Dragon]

That 6400 @ 3.52 should be plenty for anything your doing. For most users quad cores are still useless so getting an e8400 would be more worth it. Try to remember this. For the average joe user (and even the gamer) having a quad core only means having a bigger e-penis.

agreed ;) quad isnt all that . as a quad owner myself you dont use all cores as no game can use 4 cores heck it barly knows you have 2 .

[Scott]

But my Quad Core system is much more responsive and feels faster than the 6850 I had overclocked. Even at stock clock setting the Quad feels much more fluid.

So what is making the system feel better? Quad Core, moving to Vista 64 from Vista 32, new DDR3 over DDR2 or getting off the 680I and moving to Intel X38 chipset.

Which is it?

[tyle6]

So you think that because I need to buy a new CPU and quads aren't neccesary in gaming i shouldn't get a quad?? Some of us do more then game with our PC's too!!

[Scott]

I would get Quad, future proofing and to me it is much more responsive. And I had 2 instances of Folding going and still get a 14300 in 3DMark 06.

[Sadasius]

Things are just easier when you move to the dark side...lol. I mean seriously what is easier? Talking to someone hoping they will move out of the way or just doing a force choke on them and walk over their dead body. It's almost the same difference in the chipsets. Your parts in a 6801 have to reason with the chipset to be able to pass. Sometimes it does or it does not. Not the X38...You get what you demand....POWER! I think the combo of your quadcore and the X38 chipset with DDR3 is what made the magic happen.

[Chakka]

I would get Quad, future proofing and to me it is much more responsive. And I had 2 instances of Folding going and still get a 14300 in 3DMark 06.

IMO it depends on strategy and budget. Im probably going with a dual core penryn when they become more available which should be around the time of the p45 mobos come out so I would upgrade to a p45 or get a really cheap p35 (unless the nvidia 750i turns out to be a good alternative)...plus Ill upgrade to 4 gb of ddr2 and thinking of going to the darkside with 64 bit Vista too. I should be able to keep my upgrade to under $500 since I dont think Ill need a new psu or anything else.

Should run games really well with this upgrade except maybe crisis.

[Victor]

I do agree that multiple core do feels faster. I did notice that when I move from single to dual core (not sure if it's just psychological). I usually open up whole bunch of windows and have lots of things working on the background and I think having more core do helps.

Not sure the diff between dual vs quad yet since I don't own quad core. I am pretty sure that I will go for quad due to the reviewing purpose. Now just need to decide which one.

When will the mainstream nehalem coming out? Base on the information I got, it seems to be like Q1 or Q2 of next year.

[donpm]

Wait for price drop in the q6600 and go with it. It is easy to overclock. And it should be fine for you. That is what I am going with. Plus the q6600 manufactures have less "duds" for overclocking. Where as the Q9300 has more "duds" in its production, least that is what I have read.

[hatakezetsumei]

Personally i would wait for Nehalem but whatever because there is always something new and better around the corner so its up to you.

[slugbug]

Well the Q6600 is $200 right now at Microcenter stores if you're near one. Sale ends tomorrow I believe.

[PP Mguire]

Lol at the future proofing comment. I bought an X2 3800+ back in the day and Crysis is just now starting to use a dual core let alone know a second half is there. Quad core usage is so much further. Id say a different setup, plus the faster ram is whats making it smoother. Either that or better driver support. Somewhere around there.

[Methious]

I'm still thinking good quad core support is a ways off, already programmers are so overwhelmed that their practically on their knees begging the hardware developers to slow down. Unless your doing video or sound editing, by the time good support comes around the quad will be outdated.

That being said, I'd get a quad right now if Nehalm was out. The only way I'd quad right now is if they were cheap enough. End of the year the existing Intel platform is dead or dying period. New socket, new processors and this round isn't just a little more speed, it's an evolution of the platform.

My 2 cents worth is on waiting for Nehalm and going that way, or taking advantage of the price drop when it comes out.

[zachig]

I'd personally go with the Q6600! Especially if you can wait a bit for it's price to go down to (or below) $200!!! ;-)

That's what I'm planning to do, to replace my E6600 with the Q6600 :grin:.

[Kougar]

I do agree that multiple core do feels faster. I did notice that when I move from single to dual core (not sure if it's just psychological). I usually open up whole bunch of windows and have lots of things working on the background and I think having more core do helps.

Not sure the diff between dual vs quad yet since I don't own quad core. I am pretty sure that I will go for quad due to the reviewing purpose. Now just need to decide which one.

When will the mainstream nehalem coming out? Base on the information I got, it seems to be like Q1 or Q2 of next year.

Yes, I can tell immediately if I am using a single or dual-core system. But not so much with a dual verse quad-core system. However when programs misbehave and sap 100% of a single core in the background I am still completely oblivious to it with a Quadcore, where as on my E6300 I can still notice something is amiss. I'm not sure if that is a good thing, either! :)

Because you are a reviewer I would have to admit that alone is a good arguement for a Quad. As far as which of the Quads to get, the crux of the matter is you will need to decide if you are willing to upgrade now and not upgrade later, or wait and upgrade later. I'm saving up to upgrade later, but I already have a quad so the point is kinda moot there.

Nehalem will require a new socket/mainboard, DDR3 RAM, possibly new CPU coolers to fit the new socket, and of course one Quadcore Nehalem CPU. That is going to be expensive as heck for anyone even if they have the DDR3 RAM already.

Worst case I would say you are correct. Unless Intel suffers more delays, Nehalem should follow the same timing as Penryn and Conroe. High-end Extreme parts this fall, mainstream chips by January and available by February.

I don't expect delays because the new 45nm process is what is what appears to be causing the problems with Penryn Quads, and they will have that ironed out by the time Nehalem is due. Since Nehalem is a completely new socket, new chipset, and new everything else I expect they will wish to ramp up production very quickly to give it a stable launch.

The Q6600 should actually be at $230 and not $200. And I have no idea when Intel will become happy enough with their quality control to release Quadcore Penryns. I don't think there is going to be any real difference to having 6MB L2 cache verses 12mb L2 cache, because there is simply not much of a difference between Conroe and Penryn to begin with! If anything I expect some of the Q9300's will overclock much better thanks to not having all that extra cache to drag it down. I guess it just depends what you plan to do with your CPU and if you are going to be happy with it once Nehalem arrives and the world goes DDR3 overnight.

[Victor]

thanks for all of the replies. After some thoughts, I think I would either get an Q6600 or Q9300 depending on the price and availability. I was plannign for the Q9450 but I don't think that it really is worth all of that money since Nehalem is looming which means that I probably would be upgrading in a year or year and half, so it's better to put that money for future upgrade than waste on the quad core.

Based on teh information I got, the new 45nm quad core will be released on the April 20th. and Intel is pretty sure that they will release Nehalem this year so I guess I either hold onto my dual core or maybe upgrading to the Q6600 or Q9300.

Hopefully the price will drop of I can get some awesome deal soon.

[Kougar]

April? Wow, Intel is really delaying those quads... I wonder if they are working on a new revision of the silicon.

After a bit more thought on this... I think the Q9300 would be a much better option. Since you would have to wait anyway for the Q6600 price cuts, I think the Q9300 is well worth the extra ~$40 over a Q6600.

[zachig]

Well-decided, Victor! Like I said before, you'd better go with the Q6600 and only in a year or so upgrade your whole system to a DDR3-based one and then buy a new Quad-Core CPU as well...:grin:

ALL THE BEST :icon_tiphat: then and keep us updated...;-)