E8400 or Q6600 or Q9300

[D3vastator]

I will used this proc for gaming, software enginnering (NASTRAN, PATRAN, AutoCAD, etc), and chatting.
Which one do you choose?
Please give explanation.
Thanks.

[Super Nade]

Budget? Application?

If you are planning on buying me a CPU, I'll be willing to try the Q9300 for my CAD stuff...:D

[burebista]

E8400 for gaming
Q9300 for CPU intensive tasks (3D rendering, DVD ripping, CAD) or/and multitasking.
Q6600 if it's cheaper as Q9300.

[D3vastator]

I will used this proc for gaming, software enginnering (NASTRAN, PATRAN, AutoCAD, etc), and chatting.

Thanks for reply.

[signmeuptoo]

I think your path is clear: Q9300, smaller architecture, less power, cooler (?), slightly more powerful, still can overclock, just fine for gaming. Sure, a dual core top speed will yield high benchies sometimes as you have listed, but so what, it isn't like you need every morsel of power for games, graphics is where that matters most.

Focus on fitting your needs for CAD here and everything else falls into place I should think, right?

[D3vastator]

But Q9300 only has small multiplier and it will be difficult to overclock.
Is that right?

[signmeuptoo]

Yes, the multiplier limitation and the speed capability of your RAM decide your overclock to some extent, because they are limiting factors. You would need higher speed RAM that would tolerate a greater bus speed to permit the same overclock on a lower multiplier, IIRC. So what RAM you get will help in that regard.

Example:

My humble Athlon 64 4800 Toledo is stock 2.4 GHz with a 200 MHz bus and mutli of 12, or 12 x 200. Now, I am limited to a max multi of 12, so past that I have to raise the BUS speed, and the higher the bus speed, the faster the RAM *has to* run. For example, to get 3.0 GHz, I have to set my bus at 250 MHz, and since the RAM it uses is called "DDR" for double data rate, 250 x 2 is 500, so I have to have RAM that tolerates the speed of 500.

HOWEVER:

This is where RAM dividers come in to play. You use a RAM divider, also known as a FSB to RAM ratio, to get the RAM speed back down. And that's just fine and dandy, and you would think you're in like flint since you can use that, HOWEVER: There are only a few ratios available to choose from, so making just one increment divider change equals a fairly large change in RAM speed relative to BUS (FSB) speed. Also, sometimes systems can be finicky for mysterious reasons with certain dividers or even ANY dividers, partly because SOME RAM doesn't like it for some reason I don't know.

NOW:

Ideally, what we'd LOVE is to be able to get the max out of:

1: The CPU speed.

2: The mainboard bus(s) (AMD systems have two of them, one between CPU and RAM, one between CPU and the mainboard chipset, and this is because AMD systems have INTEGRATED memory controllers on the CPU itself, to enhance performance due to reduced latencies).

3: The RAM.

4: The Chipset/Board/Parts.

BU-UT:

We all know you cannot overdrive your mainboard chipset related parts very much, or any, if you want stability, for instance, you want a BIOS with a dividing capability to decouple the FSB speed in order to keep the hard drives bussed at the speed that will keep them from getting corrupted, or even fried. Thus, we want a BIOS that can do things.

HOWEVER:

Running RAM a hundred MHz one way or the other isn't hardly, or even at all, noticable to the system user, even IF benchmarks *might* show *some* gains. So running RAM as fast as can be isn't AS important as running the CPU as fast as IT can be.

AND:

Don't forget RAM timing Latencies, which are a limiting factor to RAM speed, another reason to have a BIOS that lets us change those values to let us clock the RAM better, with some increase in relative latency.

Now:

I have no idea what the multis are on the Intel chips (I am too poor to have such a system right now, unfortunately), so you will want to look into it. Interestingly, AMD is now providing "multiplier UNLOCKED" "BLACK EDITION" processors, at competitive prices, or the same price, as those that are locked. Sadly, it only helps marginally when we remember that Intel's fastest processors well outclass these AMD chips, so the gains are negated for some people, even with unlocked multis. Unlocked multis will let you run slower RAM, the reverse of the above.

Intel, if it really respected the enthusiast community, would rise to the occation and also release unlocked processors for their entire line of consumer chips. I wish that websites would apply due pressure to Intel to do so!

HTH.

BTW: What makes the most fancy pants RAM so valueable, AND expensive, is that it has the tacit promise of clocking faster than its official rating, and/or can handle lower latencies and/or greater voltages to assist in getting it there if needs be and if the RAM "likes" voltage increases because it responds by clocking better (some won't improve with added voltage past a given point, or at all). And don't forget, stressing RAM with voltage stresses the REST of the system at the same time.

[D3vastator]

Thanks for reply.

My spec now:
E4300@2,4GHz (modstrap)
Team Xtreem 2GB kit PC8500
Biostar TP35D2-A7
8800GT
Corsair VX 550W

Do I get significant boost to upgrade from my spec to E8400/Q9300?
I only upgrade proc, though.

[signmeuptoo]

As for me, sadly, I cannot tell you how much difference you will "feel" with the upgrade, such as if you chose the dual core, but here's the thing:

Personally, even with an increase of, say, 600 MHz, I, myself, would never bother to upgrade UNLESS it was some kind of major deal price wise. Although, IF the CPU I had wasn't just 600 MHz slower, but also MORE LIMITED in overclocking potential, to a great enough extent, THEN I might.

But IMHO, the only reason *I'd* bother to upgrade, were I you, would be so that I *CAN* move to a quad core, because of all of the obvious benefits of more cores. Besides, as time moves on, more games and more applications are going to make use of multiple cores (who knows at what rate, but it is inevitable, and, IMHO, IMMINENT).

Like I say, how much difference do you thing trading one very fast processor for another even more very fast processor will be for games? Neah, not so big a deal, because the bottleneck is the graphics card.

For me, I'd take more cores over, say, 400 MHz any day, of difference in speed, and over even 10% difference in overclocking potential as well!

Just get some very fast RAM, even if it has high latencies, a great motherboard with a really maxed out BIOS, and the newer quad core. And get a graphics card ***that properly suits your REAL needs*** (don't get more than you need, get what is needed for the size monitor and games you will play.

That's my humble take on things, but like I say, that is just me...

[Valset]

well the cad should go up quite a bit with a quad core but as your going to be running DDR1066 on DDR800 board with a P35 chipset I think your best bang for the buck here is a 200 dollar Q6600. you already have your system overclocked so overclocking the Q6600 would be easy. (are you using stock cooling or what?) you could increase everything across the board. If you make sure that you get a step GO you should get an easy 3gh. to me that would be the best upgrade path.

[D3vastator]

I'm using Thermaright Ultra 120 Extreme for cooling.
My motherboard is DFI DK P35 T2RS and my RAM is Team Xtreem 2GB kit PC8500.

How to setting the BIOS for this motherboard (FSB 450 or higher)?

[Hutch]

I'm using Thermaright Ultra 120 Extreme for cooling.
My motherboard is DFI DK P35 T2RS and my RAM is Team Xtreem 2GB kit PC8500.

How to setting the BIOS for this motherboard (FSB 450 or higher)?

Most E4300's won't hit 450mhz FSB.

DFI bios are extremely complex, way too much for your typical novice overclocker.

[D3vastator]

Yeah, my E4300 can only reach 400x9 = 3,6GHz.

Oh, I forgot to tell that now I'm using E8400.
Currently, my E8400 can reach FSB 490x9 = 4,41GHz with DFI DK P35 T2RS and Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120 (only used for benchmark, not for daily).

Anyone can help the BIOS setting of DFI DK P35 T2RS to reach FSB 500x9 = 4,5GHz and stable (pass CPU Test 3DMark05)?

[ianm2]

hi I have a lowly 4400 and am thinking of upgrading my cpu.

I was wondering which would be the 'best' for me, my options are the same...

8400, q6600, 9300 is getting a bit pricy.

what's happened to the 1600fsb cpu's?

basically I don't overclock.

I rip cd's
use the web, and keep about 10 windows open simultaneously
play games
and general use, no hard core image editing.

why would I need 4 cores?

[burebista]

why would I need 4 cores?
You don't need.

[ianm2]

no, but everyone seems to be buying them, why? do they think they do?

[burebista]

I have no ideea why do you need a Quad at home. For CAD or heavy ripping/encoding I understand, but for browsing, multimedia, games I don't understand.

[D3vastator]

hi I have a lowly 4400 and am thinking of upgrading my cpu.

I was wondering which would be the 'best' for me, my options are the same...

8400, q6600, 9300 is getting a bit pricy.

what's happened to the 1600fsb cpu's?

basically I don't overclock.

I rip cd's
use the web, and keep about 10 windows open simultaneously
play games
and general use, no hard core image editing.

why would I need 4 cores?

Maybe quad core helps in rip cd's.
Also, if you don't overclock, quad core is a better option.
Q6600 or Q9450 is recommended.

Btw, I use E8400 because I playing game (game don't need quad core) and I do overclock (now I running my E8400@3,6GHz default vcore).

[deeppow]

For gaming & chatting the 8400 will be fine.

For your eng apps, there are more variables. I assume NASTAN and such are threaded (been a very long time since I used them) to make use of multi-core so the next question is how long are your simulations? A quad with reduce that (with the end difference also including the overclocks involved if you've overclocked). Once you go to simulations hours long then I would go quad. On the other hand a small number of minute long sims (or the eng apps aren't threaded) the 8400 should do.

Which quad if you go that route? If you want to fully overclock a 9300 or 9450 (minimize FSB wall effect present in P35 and X38), you need a P45 chipset motherboard. But as Valset suggested, if you stay with the P35 board then a Q6600 is an excellent quad choice. ;)

[Rockfella]

OK bottom line: Q6600 and try to overclock it. Best of all worlds!

[angelicavoc]

i vote to E8400 , but now many software that supports quad core technology, so for future use to the quad core processor will be profitable