Non-Extreme 45nm Quad(s) are on Newegg Now!!

The Q9300 has 6mb of cache right? And the Q9*50s are all on 12mb?

Am wondering if the doubled cache really matters so much, I remember how popular the E6300s where and the lesser cache didnt seem to slow those guys down much.

Martyn

2008-03-24 12:42:48

#6

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6810|Long Island, New York

Bell wrote:
The Q9300 has 6mb of cache right? And the Q9*50s are all on 12mb?

Am wondering if the doubled cache really matters so much, I remember how popular the E6300s where and the lesser cache didnt seem to slow those guys down much.

Martyn

Yup. Q9450/Q9550 both have 12mb of Cache.

I don't get why people are going for the Q9550, though. EVERYTHING is the same, only the multiplier is only 8.5 as compared to 8 on the Q9450. And it's double the price.

2008-03-24 12:43:12

#7

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6596|New Haven, CT

It is anywhere from 5-10% difference less in performances with half the cache, and 15-20 with 1/4.

Here.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-03-24 12:45:58)

2008-03-24 12:45:25

#8

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6623

Poseidon wrote:
Bell wrote:
The Q9300 has 6mb of cache right? And the Q9*50s are all on 12mb?

Am wondering if the doubled cache really matters so much, I remember how popular the E6300s where and the lesser cache didnt seem to slow those guys down much.

Martyn
Yup. Q9450/Q9550 both have 12mb of Cache.

I don't get why people are going for the Q9550, though. EVERYTHING is the same, only the multiplier is only 8.5 as compared to 8 on the Q9450. And it's double the price.

Highest possible OC. They aren't exactly high FSB friendly as they're Quads.

2008-03-24 12:46:54

#9

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6596|New Haven, CT

ReDevilJR wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
Bell wrote:
The Q9300 has 6mb of cache right? And the Q9*50s are all on 12mb?

Am wondering if the doubled cache really matters so much, I remember how popular the E6300s where and the lesser cache didnt seem to slow those guys down much.

Martyn
Yup. Q9450/Q9550 both have 12mb of Cache.

I don't get why people are going for the Q9550, though. EVERYTHING is the same, only the multiplier is only 8.5 as compared to 8 on the Q9450. And it's double the price.
Highest possible OC. They aren't exactly high FSB friendly as they're Quads.

You aren't really getting a performance boost that warrants paying twice the money.

2008-03-24 12:51:17

#10

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6842|Portland, OR, USA

nukchebi0 wrote:
ReDevilJR wrote:
Poseidon wrote:

Yup. Q9450/Q9550 both have 12mb of Cache.

I don't get why people are going for the Q9550, though. EVERYTHING is the same, only the multiplier is only 8.5 as compared to 8 on the Q9450. And it's double the price.
Highest possible OC. They aren't exactly high FSB friendly as they're Quads.
You aren't really getting a performance boost that warrants paying twice the money.

Meh, if you have the money

2008-03-24 12:53:10

#11

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6623

CommieChipmunk wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
ReDevilJR wrote:

Highest possible OC. They aren't exactly high FSB friendly as they're Quads.
You aren't really getting a performance boost that warrants paying twice the money.
Meh, if you have the money

2008-03-24 13:04:59

#12

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6686|Finland

OOOo nice... quite expensive tho... I'll get my Q6600 G0 for cheap in a day or two.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-03-24 13:06:41

#13

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7115|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Expensive? $300 is cheaper than a 65nm Q6600 here.

2008-03-24 13:30:11

#14

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6469|Winland

PBAsydney wrote:
Expensive? $300 is cheaper than a 65nm Q6600 here.

Yeah, but you live in the middle of the ocean.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-03-24 13:34:30

#15

The#1Spot: Member; +105|6812|byah

Quite cheap for a 45nm but out of my price range considering my next upgrade of ram processor and mobo is less than that combined.

2008-03-24 13:39:13

#16

link52787: Member; +29|6794

I wonder how overclocking would be on that because the multiplier is only 7.5 (1333mhz/4 = 333mhz therefore 2500mhz/333mhz =7.5)

The multiplier is locked so you would have to push the bus speed higher which puts on more stress on the motherboard. Unless you have a high FSB tolerant motherboard.

2008-03-24 13:43:03

#17

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6623

link52787 wrote:
I wonder how overclocking would be on that because the multiplier is only 7.5 (1333mhz/4 = 333mhz therefore 2500mhz/333mhz =7.5)

The multiplier is locked so you would have to push the bus speed higher which puts on more stress on the motherboard. Unless you have a high FSB tolerant motherboard.

Basically maxed out around 3GHz (400Mhz FSB)

2008-03-24 13:52:16

#18

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7115|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Freezer7Pro wrote:
PBAsydney wrote:
Expensive? $300 is cheaper than a 65nm Q6600 here.
Yeah, but you live in the middle of the ocean.

Tru dat

But wages here are way higher than over in the US

2008-03-24 14:54:07

#19

The_Sniper_NM: Official EVGA Fanboy; +94|6386|SC | USA |

Yep, now wait for the prices to stabilize (Q9450 ~300-350) and build my new GTS 512 SLi rig.

Finally everything I need for my rig has come out...

2008-03-26 16:55:26

#20

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6623

The_Sniper_NM wrote:
Yep, now wait for the prices to stabilize (Q9450 ~300-350) and build my new GTS 512 SLi rig.

Finally everything I need for my rig has come out...

Q9450 ~ $379.99

https://c1.neweggimages.com/NeweggImage/productimage/19-115-039-02.jpg

Last edited by ReDevilJR (2008-03-26 16:55:54)

2008-03-26 17:27:35

#21

SpIk3y: Minister of Silly Walks; +67|6411|New Jersey

Q9450's already out of stock (or was it ever in stock)? Seems a little expensive too.

2008-03-26 17:30:22

#22

ReDevilJR: Member; +106|6623

SpIk3y wrote:
Q9450's already out of stock (or was it ever in stock)? Seems a little expensive too.

Cheaper than Q6700, same clock speeds. Although, I imagine the 10x multiplier is keeping the Q6700 at a high price.

2008-03-26 17:37:00

#23

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6596|New Haven, CT

CommieChipmunk wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
ReDevilJR wrote:

Highest possible OC. They aren't exactly high FSB friendly as they're Quads.
You aren't really getting a performance boost that warrants paying twice the money.
Meh, if you have the money you would buy a QX9650

2008-03-26 17:44:03

#24

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6810|Long Island, New York

ReDevilJR wrote:
The_Sniper_NM wrote:
Yep, now wait for the prices to stabilize (Q9450 ~300-350) and build my new GTS 512 SLi rig.

Finally everything I need for my rig has come out...
Q9450 ~ $379.99

http://c1.neweggimages.com/NeweggImage/ … 039-02.jpg

780i + Q9450 =

2008-03-26 23:42:29

#25

Volatile: Member; +252|6976|Sextupling in Empire

Hmm... I think I'll hold onto my q6600 for a little while longer, and wait for the nehalem octo-core proc. at the end of the year.

BF2S Forums Non-Extreme 45nm Quad(s) are on Newegg Now!!

Bell wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Bell wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Bell wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

link52787 wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

SpIk3y wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

ReDevilJR wrote:

The_Sniper_NM wrote:

Board footer