jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 11:25 am)

A new finding. Now on Xbit labs they are saying that the original Q6600 may be a better choice after all :-(. Here is what they said, and you can go there and draw your own conclusions:XbitLabs:"As a result, Core 2 Quad Q6600 may remain a better choice for overclocker systems, because it may run faster than Core 2 Quad Q9300 in some cases. Moreover, overclocking of previous-generation quad-core processors is a simpler procedure that doesn't depend that much on the mainboard functionality."

jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 11:13 am)

Hi again. Sorry for the stream of posts, but I finished the article and found that it said the Q9300 will be about 7% faster and consume about 30watts less under full load, if I understood correctly. So I guess it's worth it, but will be a small difference. I don't know how much cooler it will be though in terms of temps. IF anyone knows, please say.

jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 11:04 am)

OK, I just read some things on Xbit Labs about OC'ing the Q9300 and found out that due to a 333fsb and some other technicalities, the chip will be hard to overclock beyond 3.5ghz. It somehow lowers the default clock frequency multipliers and causes a problem.Looking at benchmarks it doesn't really seem to outperform a Q6600 either. At least not by much. The next question will be how cool is it?I may be missing something but that's the basic understanding I got. I need to read more on it.

jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 10:44 am)

Oh I forgot to ask. If you want to overclock a Q6600 you should look for one with G0 stepping, so I've heard. Would we need G0 stepping in these new 45nm chips too? Or are they quite different? Just wondering.

jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 10:38 am)

Oh, wow, the Q9450 is 2.66. Do you know if it will be cooler than a Q6600 if it were over clocked to say 3ghz or 3.2ghz? Would I need a special motherboard due to 1333 fsb or can I use the same as I'd use for a Q6600? Are there any snags to going with a chip like this in terms of finding the right mobo and memory? My big dream is to get 4 cores, running fast and as cool as possible. Any help much appreciated.

jz33040 (March 10, 2008 at 10:30 am)

I was stuck between a core duo at 3ghz and a Q6600 and OC'ing to 3ghz. Just as I was deciding to go with Q6600 the 45nm has been released. Yorkfield Q9300? I'm hoping I can get a quad core in 45nm and have it run better and cooler at 3ghz than Q6600 or maybe some above this. Will the 45nm tech help in regards to this? Is it worth it? It sounds like that's the whole point, but I'm not sure what it can do yet. I could get Q6600 but this looks like it's worth getting. Anyone know?

3dscott (February 29, 2008 at 4:57 am)

Thanks for getting back to me.dam 12mb of L2 Cache.Do you know if they have a set date for this chip set?

benjipalmer3000 (February 29, 2008 at 4:08 am)

Yes, the Q9450.Q6600: 65nm, 1066MHz FSB, 2.40GHz Clock Speed, 8MB L2 Cache, still priced around $300.Q9450: 45nm, 1333MHz FSB, 2.66GHz Clock Speed, 12MB L2 Cache, will be released around $315.Currently, I am waiting for the Q9450, rather than getting the Q6600.

SnoopSanders (February 23, 2008 at 5:38 am)

Ow! That would hurt! Those things would probably cut you.

3dscott (February 1, 2008 at 6:18 am)

will there be something like a Q6600 45nm?