# Q9450 or Q6700



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

Which one should I get? The Q6700 at clubit is a great deal, IMO, and I'm confident it will run @ 4GHz with my Zalman 9700. The only benefit to the Q9450, it seems, is the increase in cache. To get 4GHz with the Q9450, as everyone knows, you need a 500 FSB. I'm not sure if my Gigabyte EX38 will be able to push that stabily. 

What do you guys think? 

EDIT: BTW, the second poll option should read *Q6700*, not Q6600.


----------



## Kreij (Mar 22, 2008)

Isn't the 9450 45nm vs. the Q6700 @ 65nm?
You should get a better OC on the smaller die.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

mep916 said:


> Which one should I get? The Q6700 at clubit is a great deal, IMO, and I'm confident it will run @ 4GHz with my Zalman 9700. The only benefit to the Q9450, it seems, is the increase in cache. To get 4GHz with the Q9450, as everyone knows, you need a 500 FSB. I'm not sure if my Gigabyte EX38 will be able to push that stabily.
> 
> What do you guys think?



if u want it now definitely.. but personally i wouldnt bank on 4 gig 24/7 100%.. u need to check around the net for overclock results on air..

trog


----------



## MikeJeng (Mar 22, 2008)

12MB Cache. What the heck is this?


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Isn't the 9450 45nm vs. the Q6700 @ 65nm?
> You should get a better OC on the smaller die.



Well, I know the Q9450 will run cooler. The 10x multiplier with the Q6700 leads me to believe that achieving 4GHz would be easier. My main concern, I suppose, is the low Q9450's low multiplier. I'm not sure if my mobo can handle a 500 FSB. 



trog100 said:


> but personally i wouldnt bank on 4 gig 24/7 100%..



I run F@H 24/7, so that would be a problem.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 22, 2008)

not your mobo... the Q9450 cant handle 500FSB, they have an FSB wall in the 400's  (460ish?-480ish) those chips cant take high FSB's and if you want a monster overclock youre way better off with Q6700.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287

If read the 9450 reviews, they will talk about the wall, you won't find one at 500FSB.  Pretty much guaranteed.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

Q6700 for $299 is good till midnight tonight. act now!

the q6700 is guaranteed to do 4ghz easy. q9450 cant do 4ghz at it's max.

q6700 is $299

Q9450 is $360

why pay more for less?


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> not your mobo... the Q9450 cant handle 500FSB, they have an FSB wall in the 400's  (460ish?-480ish) those chips cant take high FSB's and if you want a monster overclock youre way better off with Q6700.



OK... I understand.


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> why pay more for less?



Exactly. I guess it's a no-brainer, but I wanted to be sure I was correct with the Q9450's limitations.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/281927-45nm-quad-not-good-investment-yet.html


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 22, 2008)

I could be wrong, but isn't L2 cache one of the most important things in a current processor, more so than a few hundred mhz. I don't know much about it technically, but I know some who do, and they seem to tell me that 12mb cache will mop the floor with 8mb of cache, even if you can only get the q9450 to 3.6 and you get the q6600 to 4.0. 

Just remember, max oc in ghz is not the all-determining factor in how fast a proc runs. However, that being said, I don't know if the extra hundred bucks would really be worth it. If you got the money though, I would say go for the q9450.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I could be wrong, but isn't L2 cache one of the most important things in a current processor, more so than a few hundred mhz. I don't know much about it technically, but I know some who do, and they seem to tell me that 12mb cache will mop the floor with 8mb of cache, even if you can only get the q9450 to 3.6 and you get the q6600 to 4.0.
> 
> Just remember, max oc in ghz is not the all-determining factor in how fast a proc runs. However, that being said, I don't know if the extra hundred bucks would really be worth it. If you got the money though, I would say go for the q9450.



it's the other way around. higher FSB moves more data. higher multiplier can get the cpu to a higher clock speed easier than a low multi can. high FSB and high core speed beat L2 cache. 

a q9450 @ 3.6ghz would perform like a Q6700 @ 3.7ghz....

therefore...

a q6700 @ 4.2 would be like a Q9450 @ 4.1 which isnt possible with the 478mhz FSB wall on the 45nm chips.


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

And just so everyone understands, I'm not interested in the Q6600. That was a typo. I currently own the B3 stepping and have it stable at 3.2 GHz.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

mep916 said:


> And just so everyone understands, I'm not interested in the Q6600. That was a typo. I currently own the B3 stepping and have it stable at 3.2 GHz.



a G0 q6600 is almost a completely different CPU. 

the Q6700 is even better though.


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> a G0 q6600 is almost a completely different CPU.



Yeah, I know. The B3 runs hotter than a crackpipe. 

My load temps are in the 56-58*C range with a 1.4 VCore. I guess that's not too bad. 



fitseries3 said:


> the Q6700 is even better though.



I'll probably buy it.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

you have till midnight.... im just warning you. if you dont get one soon they may run out. this is the 3rd week they have had this sale.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

your poll says Q6600 and you are asking about the 6700. well i would say go with the Q6700. lower FSb = less stress on the mobo because the 6700 has a higher multiplier at 10. the Q9450 has an x8 multi. not many mobo like 500 fsb to reach the 4ghz level. i just got myself a Q6600 just the other day for $199 at MicroCenter . in store only though . 
Q6700 for the win


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

Spacegoast said:


> your poll says Q6600 and you are asking about the 6700. well i would say go with the Q6700. lower FSb = less stress on the mobo because the 6600 has a higher multiplier at 9. the Q9450 has an x8 multi. not many mobo like 500 fsb to reach the 4ghz level. i just got myself a Q6600 just the other day for $199 at MicroCenter . in store only though .
> Q6700 for the win



q6700 has a 10x so 10x 400 = 4ghz

q6600 has a 9x so 9x 450 = 4ghz

q9450 has a 8x so 8x 500 = 4ghz BUT.... the 45nm quads have a 478mhz FSB wall so 4ghz = NO WAY.

also.. the q9450 is at it's absolute MAX at 478mhz FSB

the q6600 is close to max

and the q6700 has room to keep going. 10x 450 = 4.5ghz!!!


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> q6700 has a 10x so 10x 400 = 4ghz
> 
> q6600 has a 9x so 9x 450 = 4ghz
> 
> ...




i am well aware of all that. that is why i said Q6700 FTW since it has the highest multi and avoid the 9450

edit: i edited my first post. i noticed i threw in the q6600 and 9x multi. but i still had Q6700 FTW at the end


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> q6600 has a 9x so 9x 450 = 4ghz
> 
> the q6600 is close to max



I've tried to boot above 3.7 GHz with a 1.5 VCore and small voltage increases to the MCH and FSB. It's simply not happening. 



fitseries3 said:


> and the q6700 has room to keep going. 10x 450 = 4.5ghz!!!



That's awesome.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 22, 2008)

i was just informing anyone who didnt know.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

mep916 said:


> I've tried to boot above 3.7 GHz with a 1.5 VCore and small voltage increases to the MCH and FSB. It's simply not happening.
> 
> 
> 
> That's awesome.



could be the B3 stepping keeping you at 3.7.


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

Spacegoast said:


> could be the B3 stepping keeping you at 3.7.



I'm not sure; that's what I've always assumed, though.


----------



## Spacegoast (Mar 22, 2008)

ya i have seen that X38 DS4 board hit pretty high with the Q6600. someone from another forum had one at 4.0 on a DS4 with a G0 stepping.

edit: you wont notice a significant difference though between 3.7 and 4ghz. its just bragging rights, lol. 3.7 is still a very good oc


----------



## mep916 (Mar 22, 2008)

Spacegoast said:


> ya i have seen that X38 DS4 board hit pretty high with the Q6600. someone from another forum had one at 4.0 on a DS4 with a G0 stepping.



I just tried 3.8 and 4.0 with a 1.56 VCore. Still, no luck. 



Spacegoast said:


> edit: you wont notice a significant difference though between 3.7 and 4ghz. its just bragging rights, lol. 3.7 is still a very good oc



It'll boot and run 3DMark06 at 3.6 GHz. Not stable enough for 24/7.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 22, 2008)

just bear in mind the dual core 6850 struggled to go much over 4 gig on air.. if that struggled i dont think the quad version is gonna hit the 10 x 450 thats been mentioned.. it isnt just fsb speeds that govern a chips ultimate clock..

i recon a max 24/7  at 3.8 gig should be thought of.. water cooled and over volted.. thats different..

trog

ps.. my view is buy the sensible e8400.. but some are quad must haves..


----------



## X800 (Mar 25, 2008)

Look at this the X3350(q9450) is gonna hit 4000mhz =)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181781&page=1


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 25, 2008)

whats the q6600 24/7 vcore max?


----------

