Q6600 or wait till Q9450?

I can buy a G0 Q6600 now but should I wait for the Yorkfield Q9450 despite its low multiplier?Q6600 or wait till Q9450?
[QUOTE=''PSTriple4life'']I can buy a G0 Q6600 now but should I wait for the Yorkfield Q9450 despite its low multiplier?[/QUOTE] Well nobody can really tell you. Its all about whether you can be bothered to wait until possibly the end of feburary. Also would you be overclocking it?Q6600 or wait till Q9450?
[QUOTE=''daytona_178''] [QUOTE=''PSTriple4life'']I can buy a G0 Q6600 now but should I wait for the Yorkfield Q9450 despite its low multiplier?[/QUOTE] Well nobody can really tell you. Its all about whether you can be bothered to wait until possibly the end of feburary. Also would you be overclocking it?[/QUOTE] Yea, I ocd my e6600 to 3.4ghz
[QUOTE=''PSTriple4life''][QUOTE=''daytona_178''] [QUOTE=''PSTriple4life'']I can buy a G0 Q6600 now but should I wait for the Yorkfield Q9450 despite its low multiplier?[/QUOTE] Well nobody can really tell you. Its all about whether you can be bothered to wait until possibly the end of feburary. Also would you be overclocking it?[/QUOTE] Yea, I ocd my e6600 to 3.4ghz[/QUOTE] well if your going to wait i think you should be able to get it over 4Ghz with air cooling! And in my opinion its worth the wait because the Nehalem will require a new motherboard so you had might as make your current hardware last as long as possible! i hope that makes some sense,
I would get the q6600.
Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.
[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.[/QUOTE] k, thx
People are misinforming you here...[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=''daytona_178'']well if your going to wait i think you should be able to get it over 4Ghz with air cooling! And in my opinion its worth the wait because the Nehalem will require a new motherboard so you had might as make your current hardware last as long as possible! i hope that makes some sense,[/QUOTE] Q9450 is going to overclock about the same as the Q6600.
The Q9450 has an 8x multiplier and with the best boards topping out at ~475FSB for quadcores, that would be 3.8ghz max with 3.6ghz going to be the average which the Q6600 should reach pretty easily. So basically you are spending the extra money on the ~5% increase of performance in games, a decent boost in performance for other apps and the lower power consumption, thanks to Intel's Hi-K 45nm tech.
You have to decide if you really want to spend an extra $50 just for those advantages listed above.
It may be worth it to some and it may not be worth it for others.On a side note, I have decided to pick up the E8400 and overclock that thing to +4ghz and simply wait for Nelahem before I jump on the quadcore bandwagon.
[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.[/QUOTE] not to be a know-it-all but the q6600 is kentsfield (i just bought one)
[QUOTE=''chronogamer27''][QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.[/QUOTE] not to be a know-it-all but the q6600 is kentsfield (i just bought one)[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know my bad. But Kentsfield is based on Conroe.[QUOTE=''LordEC911'']People are misinforming you here...Q9450 is going to overclock about the same as the Q6600.
The Q9450 has an 8x multiplier and with the best boards topping out at ~475FSB for quadcores, that would be 3.8ghz max with 3.6ghz going to be the average which the Q6600 should reach pretty easily. So basically you are spending the extra money on the ~5% increase of performance in games, a decent boost in performance for other apps and the lower power consumption, thanks to Intel's Hi-K 45nm tech.
You have to decide if you really want to spend an extra $50 just for those advantages listed above.
It may be worth it to some and it may not be worth it for others.On a side note, I have decided to pick up the E8400 and overclock that thing to +4ghz and simply wait for Nelahem before I jump on the quadcore bandwagon.[/QUOTE]Games are one of the things that are going to benefit the most. Xbit labs did a review of the e8x00's and the performance difference in games (per clock) difference between the conroe and wolfdale is typically higher than that in other apps. They said this was because of the extra cache, and the Wolfdale's only have 6MB (up from 4MB). The q9450 will have 12MB compared to the 8MB on the q6600. For just a tad bit more money, the q9450 seems like a clear winner to me. Why buy an older architecture when a newer one is around (or soon to be). Just seems like a bad investment.
Only reason I'm buying an e6700 is because my friend is selling it to me for $90. Otherwise I would just save some more money and get an e8400, because those things are just insane overclockers.
[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Games are one of the things that are going to benefit the most. Xbit labs did a review of the e8x00's and the performance difference in games (per clock) difference between the conroe and wolfdale is typically higher than that in other apps. They said this was because of the extra cache, and the Wolfdale's only have 6MB (up from 4MB). The q9450 will have 12MB compared to the 8MB on the q6600. For just a tad bit more money, the q9450 seems like a clear winner to me. Why buy an older architecture when a newer one is around (or soon to be). Just seems like a bad investment.[/QUOTE]Games actually were the main type of apps that had the lowest performance increase, roughly an average of ~5%.
Multimedia apps definitely benefitted the most thanks to the new SSE4 instruction set.
Does anyone know what the prices are going to be for the Q9450s?
[QUOTE=''trodeback'']Does anyone know what the prices are going to be for the Q9450s?[/QUOTE]~$320.
just wait. better performance, cooling, power usage.
I've got an e6750 now and am going to upgrade my motherboard in a few weeks. I'll use the dual core I've got now for a while until the new Quad Cores drop to around 250-300.
[QUOTE=''LordEC911'']People are misinforming you here...[QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Get the Q9450. It is 45nm, so you will be able to overclock that thing like mad. Also, it is 10-15% faster per clock than conroe (Q6600) and has SSE4 support.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=''daytona_178'']well if your going to wait i think you should be able to get it over 4Ghz with air cooling! And in my opinion its worth the wait because the Nehalem will require a new motherboard so you had might as make your current hardware last as long as possible! i hope that makes some sense,[/QUOTE] Q9450 is going to overclock about the same as the Q6600.
The Q9450 has an 8x multiplier and with the best boards topping out at ~475FSB for quadcores, that would be 3.8ghz max with 3.6ghz going to be the average which the Q6600 should reach pretty easily. So basically you are spending the extra money on the ~5% increase of performance in games, a decent boost in performance for other apps and the lower power consumption, thanks to Intel's Hi-K 45nm tech.
You have to decide if you really want to spend an extra $50 just for those advantages listed above.
It may be worth it to some and it may not be worth it for others.On a side note, I have decided to pick up the E8400 and overclock that thing to +4ghz and simply wait for Nelahem before I jump on the quadcore bandwagon.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=''LordEC911''][QUOTE=''Baselerd'']Games are one of the things that are going to benefit the most. Xbit labs did a review of the e8x00's and the performance difference in games (per clock) difference between the conroe and wolfdale is typically higher than that in other apps. They said this was because of the extra cache, and the Wolfdale's only have 6MB (up from 4MB). The q9450 will have 12MB compared to the 8MB on the q6600. For just a tad bit more money, the q9450 seems like a clear winner to me. Why buy an older architecture when a newer one is around (or soon to be). Just seems like a bad investment.[/QUOTE]Games actually were the main type of apps that had the lowest performance increase, roughly an average of ~5%.
Multimedia apps definitely benefitted the most thanks to the new SSE4 instruction set.[/QUOTE]LinkThe SSE4 will eventually yield higher benefits, but right now it's not really implemented in anything.
[QUOTE=''PSTriple4life'']I can buy a G0 Q6600 now but should I wait for the Yorkfield Q9450 despite its low multiplier?[/QUOTE]I have found a great site that compares all of intels cpu's. The sire shows a clear performance boost in the q9450 over the q6600. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en%26sl=de%26u=http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2007/test_intel_core_2_extreme_qx9770_q9450/%26sa=X%26oi=translate%26resnum=3%26ct=result%26prev=/search%3Fq%3Dq9450%2Breview%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN The argument here is that the q66 are running at stock 2.4 and most people are running them at 3.0 or higher. True that may be, however you have to also take in consideration the catch of 12mb for the q9450 means that more info will be available for accessing in shorter amount of time. The 8mb of the q66 is still impressive not to say but the q9450 has 50% greater catch. That's allot. Not only that, but it comes with 2.66 stock. Now the complaint is that the new q9450 will have 8x muti and at 1333 they will be a nightmare to overclock compared to the q66 with the 9x multi and 1066. But I mean seriously why don't you get good mobo so you don't have to worry about hitting 450 and blowing something up. If your getting a good cpu, then get a good mombo. But with that said, the q66 will hit 3.6 with muti of 9x400 while the q9450 will hit 3.2 at 8x400. Ok great, but considering the fact that the q9450 run much cooler and consume less power, as well as the 50% increase in catch speed, one has to realize that a 3.2 q9450 will out perform the q66 no problem. Then it comes down to price, which the q66 really is the winner. In most of the testing so far the q9450 has only scored 2-8% higher then the q66 (both at stock speed) which means that the 50-80$ price difference of the q66 which goes for about 255-300, and the q9450, said to go for 330-380 is a real draw back. At the end of the day people looking for the best bang for their buck will go for the q66, but people looking for something more future proof will go for the 45nm. I say this because the 45nm is truly the next gen meaning that game companies and programmers will try to utilize these processors more, the problem with the q66 is that it underperforms the E66 do to the fact that games do not use the 4cores properly, But with the new smarter 45nm processors all that is eliminated. The 65nm q66 and q67 are the way I see it the doors to the quad core world, but now we must step trough them and embrace the better q9... series. With all this said I would love to hear some contradictory evidence, because I am still looking to get either a q66 oem for 255 or wait until q9450 are released in 1 or 2 more months.