Published on 7th April 2008 by
Originally Posted by oaskedNo mention of stock shortages?
Originally Posted by genesisofthesithNice article, the only question left would be how would the processors compare when overclocked?
The q6600 can be had for £140, and has the same 9x multi as the e8400, features 2 extra cores and is cheaper. Whilst it may lack the wolfdales architectural improvements, and won't overclock quite as high, with both chips at their max overclocks (which for cheaper boards will likely be similar due to fsb bottlenecks) the q6600 may prove a better price:performance proposition.
The article really drives home however that despite us all feeling that we 'need' quads, the applications can't yet truly take advantage, and a dual core can offer similar performance or a lot less (cost, power and heat).
Originally Posted by BindibadgiThe Q6600 retails for about £140 - it's 2.4GHz, 1066MHz FSB and has less cache per core.
The E8400 retails for about £125 - it's 600MHz faster at 3GHz, it's 1333MHz FSB and has more cache per core. It's also far lower power = lower heat so a more capable overhead for overclocking. The Wolfdales do have architectural improvements and additional SSE instructions - the Wolfies will do 4GHz which is only 444MHz FSB: Most P35 boards will do that and it's only a 33 percent increase in FSB rather than a 66 percent one from a Q6600.
In games you still need MHz, memory bandwidth and cache predominantly, rather than four cores. It'll change with Nehalem because of the internal crossbar and L3 cache acting as a snoop filter - this won't use the FSB for core to core traffic on quads making them a much better solution.
The Q6600 is a fantastic chip and great value, but so is the E8400 imo. Personally I'd go for the E8400 but a Q6600 is still an excellent purchase.
EDIT: Damnit Hiren!! Leaving yourself logged in.
Stock shortages should pan out eventually as Intel increases capacity. It's a hard factor to quantify because quite a few places I looked last night said "in stock" :?
Panos - I'm saving the B3s for a later article this week - they are currently being tested to compare with all these CPUs.
We don't yet have any Q9000 series as they are as rare as hens teeth. At least the E8000 range comes and goes quite regularly. I don't expect prices to fluctuate much even when stock increases, that is, unless Intel drops its prices which I really don't expect either.
We will test overclocking on a retail chip at a later date. We've got an E8500 engineering sample here which doesn't necessarily represent real world. That and I didn't have time :o
Originally Posted by HirenWe don't yet have any Q9000 series as they are as rare as hens teeth. At least the E8000 range comes and goes quite regularly.
Originally Posted by yakybphenom looked surprisingly good really
im happy with my q6600 though
Originally Posted by [USRF]ObiwanIs there also a quoadcore like version of the E8400, since i am both a gamer and a heavy app/video editing user. I'm looking for a good processor upgrade. I dont want a Q6600, its getting old and to get the best out of it, i must do heavy overclocking what results into more power consumption.
Originally Posted by oaskedQ9450. Good luck finding stock though.
Originally Posted by r4tch3tHmm, I may have to get a 8200 to tide me over till Nehalem then, good performance, low(ish) cost.
EDIT: What's better for re-encoding DVDs, DivX or x264, quality wise. I have a small collection and its growing and want them all in digital form.
Originally Posted by BindibadgiThe Q9450 has a 1333MHz FSB and a lower multiplier so the Q6600 will still likely be a better option if you weight in overclocking and the chip cost too :)
Originally Posted by naokajiI dont think the overclocking is the deal killer, but the price, how much less do you need to overclock it to get the same speed as a q6600 due to more cache and other improvements? Q6600 usually does around 3,6 Ghz (assuming good aircooling), so if the Q9450 could keep up at lets say around 3,4 Ghz that would mean 425 fsb which is possible on a good board. but then you look at the price, the Q6600 is like 150£ less... and the Q9300 comes with cut down cache and a 7 (arggh) mutli.
so yes I agree, Q6600 still wins (or 8400 for gaming).
Originally Posted by genesisofthesithThe article really drives home however that despite us all feeling that we 'need' quads, the applications can't yet truly take advantage, and a dual core can offer similar performance or a lot less (cost, power and heat).
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
18th December 2014
17th December 2014
15th December 2014
© Copyright bit-tech