the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category..Sup wrote:
You shouldn't think this way, you might as well bought an Q6600 then which is cheaper.Jenspm wrote:
That's what I've been reading as well..Sup wrote:
I read the CPU goes to 3.5ghz with ease but then you have to put a lot more effort to get it higher than that.
But from 2.5GHz -> 3.5GHz is definately enough OC'ing for me.
Was that when they were OCed to the same clock speed?Jenspm wrote:
the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category.
I would like to see a diagram where they show the tiny differences in power consumption.haffeysucks wrote:
The Q9300 is 45nm. So it'll be more energy-efficient which is a good reason for my parents to let me upgrade, and it will hopefully dissipate less heat. I'm sure with a bit of tweaking it can go higher..Sup wrote:
You should also read my post above yours. Buy a Q6600 if you think 40% OC is enough for you. You are paying more for a Q9300 so why not actually get more?haffeysucks wrote:
Exactly what I found online as well. A 40% increase is good enough for me, thanks.
I'm getting that proc some time in May, so tell me how it is!
True but a Q6600 41% Oced will beat your 40% Oced Q9300. (in price also).Jenspm wrote:
the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category..Sup wrote:
You shouldn't think this way, you might as well bought an Q6600 then which is cheaper.Jenspm wrote:
That's what I've been reading as well.
But from 2.5GHz -> 3.5GHz is definately enough OC'ing for me.
Last edited by .Sup (2008-04-07 14:58:13)
LOL they used much higher vcore on the Q6600!!!haffeysucks wrote:
Not really the few watts you expected: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … html#sect0
Actually, according to what I read, the Q9300 at a 40% OC, is still better than a Q6600 at 41%, even though it has more GHz..Sup wrote:
True but a Q6600 41% Oced will beat your 40% Oced Q9300. (in price also).Jenspm wrote:
the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category..Sup wrote:
You shouldn't think this way, you might as well bought an Q6600 then which is cheaper.
Your are paying the extra money for more Overclockability. The cpu's core is smaller than the Q6600 65nm core. That means more space for more memory. More memory->easier to overclock, easier to overclock->more expensive (QX). And yes it overheats less and uses less power, though the bigger the OC is the more power it will use. Price difference is 100€ if I'm not mistaken.
Maybe because it wouldn't go to 3.6 without that VCore...?GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
LOL they used much higher vcore on the Q6600!!!haffeysucks wrote:
Not really the few watts you expected: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … html#sect0
3.5GHz Q9300 beats 3.6GHz Q6600 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … html#sect1.Sup wrote:
I would like to see a diagram where they show the tiny differences in power consumption.haffeysucks wrote:
The Q9300 is 45nm. So it'll be more energy-efficient which is a good reason for my parents to let me upgrade, and it will hopefully dissipate less heat. I'm sure with a bit of tweaking it can go higher..Sup wrote:
You should also read my post above yours. Buy a Q6600 if you think 40% OC is enough for you. You are paying more for a Q9300 so why not actually get more?haffeysucks wrote:
Exactly what I found online as well. A 40% increase is good enough for me, thanks.
I'm getting that proc some time in May, so tell me how it is!True but a Q6600 41% Oced will beat your 40% Oced Q9300. (in price also).Jenspm wrote:
the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category..Sup wrote:
You shouldn't think this way, you might as well bought an Q6600 then which is cheaper.
Your are paying the extra money for more Overclockability. The cpu's core is smaller than the Q6600 65nm core. That means more space for more memory. More memory->easier to overclock, easier to overclock->more expensive (QX). And yes it overheats less and uses less power, though the bigger the OC is the more power it will use. Price difference is 100€ if I'm not mistaken.
Is that worth extra 100€?DeathUnlimited wrote:
3.5GHz Q9300 beats 3.6GHz Q6600 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … html#sect1.Sup wrote:
I would like to see a diagram where they show the tiny differences in power consumption.haffeysucks wrote:
The Q9300 is 45nm. So it'll be more energy-efficient which is a good reason for my parents to let me upgrade, and it will hopefully dissipate less heat. I'm sure with a bit of tweaking it can go higher..Sup wrote:
You should also read my post above yours. Buy a Q6600 if you think 40% OC is enough for you. You are paying more for a Q9300 so why not actually get more?haffeysucks wrote:
Exactly what I found online as well. A 40% increase is good enough for me, thanks.
I'm getting that proc some time in May, so tell me how it is!True but a Q6600 41% Oced will beat your 40% Oced Q9300. (in price also).Jenspm wrote:
the Q9300 beat the q6600 in basicly every category.
Your are paying the extra money for more Overclockability. The cpu's core is smaller than the Q6600 65nm core. That means more space for more memory. More memory->easier to overclock, easier to overclock->more expensive (QX). And yes it overheats less and uses less power, though the bigger the OC is the more power it will use. Price difference is 100€ if I'm not mistaken.
It's about $40 moar here, so I'm just sticking with the Q9300 anyway..Sup wrote:
Is that worth extra 100€?DeathUnlimited wrote:
3.5GHz Q9300 beats 3.6GHz Q6600 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di … html#sect1.Sup wrote:
I would like to see a diagram where they show the tiny differences in power consumption.haffeysucks wrote:
The Q9300 is 45nm. So it'll be more energy-efficient which is a good reason for my parents to let me upgrade, and it will hopefully dissipate less heat. I'm sure with a bit of tweaking it can go higher..Sup wrote:
You should also read my post above yours. Buy a Q6600 if you think 40% OC is enough for you. You are paying more for a Q9300 so why not actually get more?haffeysucks wrote:
Exactly what I found online as well. A 40% increase is good enough for me, thanks.
I'm getting that proc some time in May, so tell me how it is!
True but a Q6600 41% Oced will beat your 40% Oced Q9300. (in price also).
Your are paying the extra money for more Overclockability. The cpu's core is smaller than the Q6600 65nm core. That means more space for more memory. More memory->easier to overclock, easier to overclock->more expensive (QX). And yes it overheats less and uses less power, though the bigger the OC is the more power it will use. Price difference is 100€ if I'm not mistaken.
It's all about getting that little extra speedB.Schuss wrote:
honestly, why would anyone need to OC the Q9300 ? Is there anything that CPU can't handle ?
or am I too conservative when it comes to CPU's ?
Shame. Cos the Q9300 will be a new toy for overclockers. It OCes better than its predecessor and buying it without OCing it is a waste of money.Jenspm wrote:
anyway, i doubt I'll oc much, if at all, which is why I got the q9300 - better out of the box.
yeah, I know, but for what purpose ? The Q9300 has 4 CPU's with 2,5 GHz each. What game or application would require the CPU to be OC'ed to run faster ? I would have thought that with a CPU like that, any game / app would run as fast as possible, and more speed won't really be "felt"..?DeathUnlimited wrote:
It's all about getting that little extra speedB.Schuss wrote:
honestly, why would anyone need to OC the Q9300 ? Is there anything that CPU can't handle ?
or am I too conservative when it comes to CPU's ?
Still a little faster.B.Schuss wrote:
yeah, I know, but for what purpose ? The Q9300 has 4 CPU's with 2,5 GHz each. What game or application would require the CPU to be OC'ed to run faster ? I would have thought that with a CPU like that, any game / app would run as fast as possible, and more speed won't really be "felt"..?DeathUnlimited wrote:
It's all about getting that little extra speedB.Schuss wrote:
honestly, why would anyone need to OC the Q9300 ? Is there anything that CPU can't handle ?
or am I too conservative when it comes to CPU's ?
With some rate exceptions maybe, such as Far Cry 2...
Most of the games (99%) utilize only 2 cores. And a lot of of games already use 3.0Ghz or more so 2.5 actually won't be enough, especially if you want your processor to run future games that are coming.B.Schuss wrote:
yeah, I know, but for what purpose ? The Q9300 has 4 CPU's with 2,5 GHz each. What game or application would require the CPU to be OC'ed to run faster ? I would have thought that with a CPU like that, any game / app would run as fast as possible, and more speed won't really be "felt"..?DeathUnlimited wrote:
It's all about getting that little extra speedB.Schuss wrote:
honestly, why would anyone need to OC the Q9300 ? Is there anything that CPU can't handle ?
or am I too conservative when it comes to CPU's ?
With some rate exceptions maybe, such as Far Cry 2...