# which is best Q6600 or Q9400



## fireblade77 (Jun 21, 2010)

ok guys my friend is after a new cpu and i want to know which is best the Q6600 2.4ghz with 8mb L2 cache or the Q9400 2.66ghz with 6mb L2 cache and if the newer Q9400 is better where would the Q8400 2.66ghz with 4mb L2 cache fit in with the above ?
this will be for gaming (battlefield bad company 2) and other games like this.
right now he has a E6600 2.4ghz duel core and i know the quad core makes a big difference in this game. would you notice any difference between any of the above cpu's which will be overclocked to around 2.8 or 3ghz.
all this will go on an asus P5B deluxe wifi/app board.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jun 21, 2010)

There won't be much different, but the Q9400 is 45nm, so it will run cooler and consume less power.

If I were you I would at least get Q9x50, the one with 12MB cache.


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 21, 2010)

kid41212003 said:


> There won't be much different, but the Q9400 is 45nm, so it will run cooler and consume less power.
> 
> If I were you I would at least get Q9x50, the one with 12MB cache.



+1


----------



## mlee49 (Jun 21, 2010)

The Q9400 and Q8400 are not worth the money, If I had my pick I would go with the Q6600 or look for a Q9450(9550,9650).

With a hefty overclock the E6600 should do fairly well in games.  It would compete well overclocked to 3.6Ghz with a Q9400/8400 @ 3.0Ghz.

Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz >> E6600@3.6Ghz>Q9400/8400


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 21, 2010)

Depends on how much the chips cost, but if they cost the same, I think the Q9400 is better than the Q6600 and the Q8400 is the loser either way.


----------



## CounterZeus (Jun 21, 2010)

I'd first consider an overclock on the current cpu, and build an entire new system later instead of upgrading a lga775 system just for gaming that already has a decent dual core . Unless of course you can get those quads real cheap.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2010)

in order of preference

Q8400
Q9400
Q6600


the Q6600 runs hotter yes, but its far easier to OC - so you'll end up with a better performing chip, for less effort.

IMO none of them are really worth it these days, get an E8x00 with 6MB cache or a Q9xx0 with 12MB cache


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 21, 2010)

I say stick with the E6600 and overclock it.  It should be more than enough in any modern game when clocked to the 3.6GHz range, and I know the E6600 can do 3.6GHz easily.


----------



## hat (Jun 21, 2010)

Yeah, I would stay with the E6600. Just because it's old (in enthusiast standards anyway) doesn't mean it's crap. Overclock it a bit and see what happens then.


----------



## fireblade77 (Jun 21, 2010)

thx for ur help guys just bought a Q9550 2.83ghz with 12mb L2 cache off ebay brand new for £15 more than a Q9400 for £160 and i think this is the best choice without having to change all his mobo and ram for an i7 or i5 setup.

we did overclock the e6600 but its not as good as a quad core in battlefield bad company 2. this game really loves the quad core which means the new MOH game will want the same as its done by the same people.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 21, 2010)

Guys, the Q9400 runs circles around the Q6600 in both performance and by a slim margin in power consumption.  Here, look at the Anandtech review .  So in the end, yeah get the Q8400!!  Enhanced multithreading wasn't seen until winrar 3.90.  This review only used winrar 3.80.  I really don't know what kind of OC you can get with the Q9400 but I do know that you topped out around 3.2Ghz with the Q6600 with 1.4XXV (within the bios).


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 21, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Guys, the Q9400 runs circles around the Q6600 in both performance and by a slim margin in power consumption.  Here, look at the Anandtech review .



Its not that the Q9400 is faster its because its clocked 260Mhz higher. If both the Q9400 and Q6600 was clocked to the same level i.e. 2.66GHz and hence the performance will be almost identical, one might argue that the Q6600 might win due to the additional cache if the clock speeds were equal.




fireblade77 said:


> ok guys my friend is after a new cpu and i want to know which is best the Q6600 2.4ghz with 8mb L2 cache or the Q9400 2.66ghz with 6mb L2 cache and if the newer Q9400 is better where would the Q8400 2.66ghz with 4mb L2 cache fit in with the above ?
> this will be for gaming (battlefield bad company 2) and other games like this.
> right now he has a E6600 2.4ghz duel core and i know the quad core makes a big difference in this game. would you notice any difference between any of the above cpu's which will be overclocked to around 2.8 or 3ghz.
> all this will go on an asus P5B deluxe wifi/app board.



Also consider your other options, you might be able to find a cheap AM2+ motherboard and a Athlon II X4 620 for cheaper than a Q6xxx or 9xxx alone, performance will be almost the same maybe even higher with an overclock, more importantly your mate will have a better upgrade path.


----------



## Oscnn (Jun 22, 2010)

I go with Q9400.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 22, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> Its not that the Q9400 is faster its because its clocked 260Mhz higher. If both the Q9400 and Q6600 was clocked to the same level i.e. 2.66GHz and hence the performance will be almost identical, one might argue that the Q6600 might win due to the additional cache if the clock speeds were equal.


The difference in clock rate between cpus do not equal to the performance difference being shown here.  Look at that Q8200 at 2.33Ghz can beat the Q6600.  And, even though the Q9400 is clocked higher it consumes less power.  So when it's all said and done the Q9400 is simply the better option.


----------



## theonedub (Jun 22, 2010)

A couple years ago I moved from a Q6600 to a Q9300, in my day to day experience it was a wash performance wise. The Q9 even ran hotter  It was a straight trade though so no loss. Later I stepped it up to the Q9550 which was a great CPU.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The difference in clock rate between cpus do not equal to the performance difference being shown here.  Look at that Q8200 at 2.33Ghz can beat the Q6600.  And, even though the Q9400 is clocked higher it consumes less power.  So when it's all said and done the Q9400 is simply the better option.



the lower multi holds you back a fair bit in OC, which can make the Q66 the better performing option in the long run.

a true 120 or a 120mm xigmatek can make a Q66 run 3.6Ghz, most boards wont let you get that high of an FSB needed for the lower end quads.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 22, 2010)

I would OC the current setup and see how he like's it, maybe try a better GFX card since primarily gaming. If going with quad core i'd snatch up a q9550 ( my next CPU )

Just my $0.02


----------



## SystemViper (Jun 22, 2010)

yea, a Sweet X3360 would be the bomb, kinda like the one i might be sellin...


----------



## fireblade77 (Jun 22, 2010)

if u read my last post u will see he bought the Q9550


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jun 22, 2010)

Q6600. Those things would edge out 3.8ghz on air. With the 3.6Ghz being stable from the majority of Q6600 users that Ive seen.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 22, 2010)

If you can get one, go with the Q6600 every time - why? They are notorious, custom PC called it the best processor ever released a few years ago.

Mine will do 4Ghz easily, 4.2 with watercooling. Get a guaranteed clocker and you'll be singing.

That said, you cant go far wrong with the Q9 series, id like a 650 myself, that'll be my next upgrade, still rocking the 775


----------

