Q6600 OC vs Q9450 OC

[3dsm]

Hey,

I`m just about to buy my new PC..well some parts actually, mainly for 3D Professional work such as rendering etc. What i need is rendering speed, although i would like to play now and then.
What I`ve looked up so far is the Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 and the Q9450. It`s pretty obvious that tha latter is better, although I was wondering wether an overclocked Q6600 can beat or at least catch up with an overlocked Q9450. The question possibly doesn`t make any sense..although I`ve heard that the Q9450 doesnt overclock pretty good, where as the Q6600 is very overclockable.
So, I would like some input on this. Should I wait for a Q9450 or an overclocked Q6600 would be a right choice?
Thanks

 

[Acanthus]

A Q6600 with very good cooling will be able to match a Q9450 in some apps because you can generally clock them a bit higher.

However more cache and other improvements closes the gap... so with the exception of SSE4 applications where the Q9450 will dominate it will generally be close.

 

[Zumbador]

I hear there will be a big price drop around the 20th of this month. The Q6700 is supposed to drop to under $300, which is the one I'd get since it has the 10X multiplier.

I've read that some rendering programs can make full use of 8 cores, so you may want to look into getting a dual socket mobo. Unfortunately I don't know too much about that. I do a bit of rendering myself in Solidworks Photoworks, but the majority of my work is CAD/CAM with no rendering, so a single Q6600/Q6700 is really all I need.

 

[boomhower]

First off don't get the Q6700 unless you have absolutely junk ram or motherboard. Any 400Mhz memory can take a Q6600 to 3.6Ghz which where you will likely top out with either chip.

Now with the Q9450 I don't beleive there is enough information out there to really give a good suggestion. From the prelimanery results it looks like it, on average, is not going to clock as high as a Q6600. But it is faster clock for clock and has more cache. Also keep in mind that the Q9450 will run cooler and use a bit less power. After it all washes out I would the Q9450 will be just a touch faster, be cooler, and use a bit less power but is $150 more expensive(after the 4/20 price drop) It is up to you to decide if it is worth it or not.

 

[Acanthus]

As zumbador said, depending on what software you are using for rendering, 16 core support is out there already.

You might want to consider a dual LGA771 rig with dual Xeon 3210s for example, it would render better than pretty much any single CPU rig.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Zumbador
which is the one I'd get since it has the 10X multiplier.

10x multi is very nice.

however the cooling requirement for it is not expecially @ 400fsb.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: boomhower
First off don't get the Q6700 unless you have absolutely junk ram or motherboard. Any 400Mhz memory can take a Q6600 to 3.6Ghz which where you will likely top out with either chip.

Now with the Q9450 I don't beleive there is enough information out there to really give a good suggestion. From the prelimanery results it looks like it, on average, is not going to clock as high as a Q6600. But it is faster clock for clock and has more cache. Also keep in mind that the Q9450 will run cooler and use a bit less power. After it all washes out I would the Q9450 will be just a touch faster, be cooler, and use a bit less power but is $150 more expensive(after the 4/20 price drop) It is up to you to decide if it is worth it or not.

this is a difficult choice to make. Part of it depends on your deal. If you look at newegg or even clubit right now and a $230 price tag for a Q6600, then compare it to the $324 that I paid for an X3350 (q9450 xeon) at moogr.com, then the prices are a little bit closer. Also, from talking to others it appears that I got a good chip that hit 3.6 easily. I like the lower power consumption, I like the 12mb cache, I like the sse4 for future usefullness, etc etc so it looks like it was a good decision for me. If it was $375 for mine and you could get a Q6600 for, say $200 after shipping/taxes, and especially if you could get equal or better clocks out of hte Q6600, then it's probably a good decision in the other direction.

 

[3dsm]

Thanks for all the replies!

Well, mostly I use 3DSMax, Photoshop, Zbrush, Adobe Premier, Digital Fusion softwares, so I really need to make a good choice here. Q9450 looks better, but because of the april 20th price drop, I think I`ll buy the Q6600 and overclock it a bit..lets say to 3.2GHz. What I`m curious about is will SSE4 make any difference in 3DSMax, because this is the program I`m using frequently for my work..and I wouldn`t like to hate myself lets say after 1 year..although I could easily change the CPU anytime.
What I need now is a good motherboard for the CPU with SLI support because I`ll be using 2x GeForce 9600GT..but I`ll ask about that in the MB forums.
Thanks again everyone!

Edit: hmmmm..was wondering about buying a Quad Core Xeon instead of the Q6600. Is that a better option? Was thinking of a Q Xeon in the same price range as the Q6600.
So, again, what I would like is rendering speed and to play now and then with some games.
Thanks again

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 3dsm
Thanks for all the replies!

Well, mostly I use 3DSMax, Photoshop, Zbrush, Adobe Premier, Digital Fusion softwares, so I really need to make a good choice here. Q9450 looks better, but because of the april 20th price drop, I think I`ll buy the Q6600 and overclock it a bit..lets say to 3.2GHz. What I`m curious about is will SSE4 make any difference in 3DSMax, because this is the program I`m using frequently for my work..and I wouldn`t like to hate myself lets say after 1 year..although I could easily change the CPU anytime.
What I need now is a good motherboard for the CPU with SLI support because I`ll be using 2x GeForce 9600GT..but I`ll ask about that in the MB forums.
Thanks again everyone!

Edit: hmmmm..was wondering about buying a Quad Core Xeon instead of the Q6600. Is that a better option? Was thinking of a Q Xeon in the same price range as the Q6600.
So, again, what I would like is rendering speed and to play now and then with some games.
Thanks again

Its really kind of a "6 of one and a half dozen of the other" situation for single CPU system to substitute a Xeon. Id go by whichever you can find cheaper. You might be able to catch an X3210 LGA775 for $200ish.

 

[v8envy]

Please keep in mind plenty of people have been getting G0 quad chips lately which haven't been OC monsters in the least. Run hot, don't OC that well (read: 3 ghz is it), the works. Could be the factory producing the golden chips is in the process of conversion to 45nm.

Also, $306 for a Q9450 at microcenter. Not many Q6600 deals (outside of B&M loss leaders) under 230. From a total rig price the $ gap is pretty darn narrow. I've made the point re: a casual overclocker is as likely to hit 3.4 ghz on a Q9450 with stock or mild aftermarket cooling as they are to hit 3.2 with a Q6600. Add in slightly faster clock-for-clock, slightly less power draw and SSE4 and it's a winner for only $70 more. $150 more? Q6600 for me, please.

 

[aigomorla]

Q6600 is on sale at frys for 189.

 

[v8envy]

Is that a B&M loss leader still, or can those of us without a fry's nearby get in on the action?

Microcenter's deal is available over the web.

 

[Hulk]

I see a couple people here are saying teh 6600 will overclock better than the 9450.

Is this based on the 6600 having the higher multiplier, thus stressing memory subsystem less, or not including the thought of multipliers the 6600 just has a core that will generally go higher?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Hulk
I see a couple people here are saying teh 6600 will overclock better than the 9450.

Is this based on the 6600 having the higher multiplier, thus stressing memory subsystem less, or not including the thought of multipliers the 6600 just has a core that will generally go higher?

The lower multiplier limits the overclock by FSB.

The 45nm chips seem to have the same 425mhz FSB wall that the 65nm chips do.

 

[hnzw rui]

Originally posted by: Hulk
I see a couple people here are saying teh 6600 will overclock better than the 9450.

Is this based on the 6600 having the higher multiplier, thus stressing memory subsystem less, or not including the thought of multipliers the 6600 just has a core that will generally go higher?

Higher multi.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


The 45nm chips seem to have the same 425mhz FSB wall that the 65nm chips do.

ummm... thats not true. :X

Havent seen a QX that couldnt do 470+ on a X38 board so far.


Anyhow i pick the Q6600. Here is my reasons, feel free to comment:

1. On the Q6600 you wont need higher then a 400fsb clock on that cpu. If your on air, this is most people's limit. To a Q9450 you would need about 3.24ghz were assuming 10% better.

Thats about 400fsb on that crapastic 8x multi. So far you have no gain at a higher price. Maybe a .01-2 dollar cheaper electricity bill (YMMV). <sorry not enough gain here>

2. So yeah you say you can clock higher. OK. To do so you need to get a decient board, if you dont have one yet. Also need to replace your ram with decient ram. Now at a higher overclock, the chip draws more power, also the board is going to draw more power. Depending on your system it will be insane. (Persephone draws 514W according to my UPS on full load)

So you should also get a Tier2 PSU at the very least.

Also the board will now most likely require upgrade in cooling, and active fans all over the place.

And so far im not too impressed with the Q9450's. I havent seen a prime stable one over 3.7 for long periods of time. And to some people like mark, prime stable isnt even stable.

[The gain here is also too little and costs too much]



So whatever fills your boat!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Acanthus


The 45nm chips seem to have the same 425mhz FSB wall that the 65nm chips do.

ummm... thats not true. :X

Havent seen a QX that couldnt do 470+ on a X38 board so far.


Anyhow i pick the Q6600. Here is my reasons, feel free to comment:

1. On the Q6600 you wont need higher then a 400fsb clock on that cpu. If your on air, this is most people's limit. To a Q9450 you would need about 3.24ghz were assuming 10% better.

Thats about 400fsb on that crapastic 8x multi. So far you have no gain at a higher price. Maybe a .01-2 dollar cheaper electricity bill (YMMV). <sorry not enough gain here>

2. So yeah you say you can clock higher. OK. To do so you need to get a decient board, if you dont have one yet. Also need to replace your ram with decient ram. Now at a higher overclock, the chip draws more power, also the board is going to draw more power. Depending on your system it will be insane. (Persephone draws 514W according to my UPS on full load)

So you should also get a Tier2 PSU at the very least.

Also the board will now most likely require upgrade in cooling, and active fans all over the place.

And so far im not too impressed with the Q9450's. I havent seen a prime stable one over 3.7 for long periods of time. And to some people like mark, prime stable isnt even stable.

[The gain here is also too little and costs too much]



So whatever fills your boat!

I havent seen a prime stable 45nm over 450, however i havent been following the QXs because ill never pay that much for a processor.

 

[Tempered81]

for overclocking:

q6600 > q9450

 

[ArchAngel777]

The Q6600 is better in my book unless you plan on using stock cooling. If have stock cooling or medium air, the Q9450 should give better results. Also, the Q9450 is about 10% faster clock for clock. So, at 3.2Ghz, the Q9450 should be able to keep up with a Q6600 3.6Ghz Quad. Then their is the price difference... I'd say Q6600 hands down at this point. Once Intel releases a 9x multi for ~250 I might jump on Penryn, but by the time that that happens, Nehalem will probably be released and *could* obsolete both Kentsfield and Yorkfield in one simple blow.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Nehalem will probably be released and *could* obsolete both Kentsfield and Yorkfield in one simple blow.

Only problem is that would require the enthusiest line. And im not very liking the mixing of enterprise/high end pc.

This ultimately means high end boards = 300-500
Cpu = 400-1500
Ram = 100-600
PSU <-- expect dual config, or something massive.

= Expensive UPGRADE!

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Nehalem will probably be released and *could* obsolete both Kentsfield and Yorkfield in one simple blow.

Only problem is that would require the enthusiest line. And im not very liking the mixing of enterprise/high end pc.

This ultimately means high end boards = 300-500
Cpu = 400-1500
Ram = 100-600
PSU <-- expect dual config, or something massive.

= Expensive UPGRADE!

That is true... Only time will tell. For now, I can't imagine there is really any need for anything greater than a Q6600 @ 3Ghz for now... Maybe when the next round of GPU's come out, but even then I doubt it. As more applications and mult-threaded, I imagine a performance jump just from devs writing multi-core applications. The Q6600 might be one of the best CPU's ever released for longevity... Only time will tell.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hulk
I see a couple people here are saying teh 6600 will overclock better than the 9450.

Is this based on the 6600 having the higher multiplier, thus stressing memory subsystem less, or not including the thought of multipliers the 6600 just has a core that will generally go higher?

The lower multiplier limits the overclock by FSB.

The 45nm chips seem to have the same 425mhz FSB wall that the 65nm chips do.

not true. I went up to 455x8 with zero issues on my ip 35 pro. I just backed it up to 450 for 24/7 use and have been stable for 3 days now on seti. I do have an antec 900 with all the 120's on medium and the top fan on high, but I have the tuniq at only 1500 rpm. All of those fan settings are the as I ran with my e6750 other than the top fan (it was on medium).

 

[bryanW1995]

other than aigomorla, this entire thread seems to be full of people spreading rumors and fud about cpus that they don't own. As I mentioned above, my personal experience has been extremely good with the X3350. It was about $120 more than a Q6600. I should save about half that during the life of the cpu, I got an EASY oc to 3.6 with it, and my heat output is significantly lower. That 3.6 is equivalent 3.75 or so on a Q6600, too, which is nearly impossible to run 24/7 for teh Q6600. I posted to windows with no problem at 3.704 and 1.40 vcore but couldn't pass prime even at 1.41 so backed it down. How many people on just an ip35 pro can post over 3.6 on Q6600?

We'll see if my x3350 is just a fluke or not when my Q9450 arrives in a few days. That one is going into an ip35e but will at least have an antec 900 to keep it cool

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
for overclocking:

q6600 > q9450

QFT

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I posted to windows with no problem at 3.704 and 1.40 vcore but couldn't pass prime even at 1.41 so backed it down. How many people on just an ip35 pro can post over 3.6 on Q6600?

We'll see if my x3350 is just a fluke or not when my Q9450 arrives in a few days. That one is going into an ip35e but will at least have an antec 900 to keep it cool

How was your temps? And what was your voltage?

I dont recomend the ip35-e. Seriously, do yourself the justice bryan and bite the bill on a high end board for once.

The dfi LT p35-T2R is my first recomendation. I bet you, when you try out that board, your gonna think youve gotten a new chip.