Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: E8400 or Q6600 or Q9300

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default E8400 or Q6600 or Q9300

    I will used this proc for gaming, software enginnering (NASTRAN, PATRAN, AutoCAD, etc), and chatting.
    Which one do you choose?
    Please give explanation.
    Thanks.
    Last edited by D3vastator; 04-23-2008 at 12:50 PM.
    I'm not native English.
    Sorry, if my English is not good enough...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Budget? Application?

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    1,105
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

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

    Thanks for reply.
    I'm not native English.
    Sorry, if my English is not good enough...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cumberland City, TN, USA
    Posts
    647
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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?
    System #1: DFI LP UT nF4 SLI-DR; Athy 64 s939 4800 Toledo (MKII) @ 3.01GHz w/Thermalright XP-120 Lapped & Panaflo w/Coollabs Liquid Metal compound; 2 x 1GB Team Xtreem Cronus Micron 5B-f DDR-500; EVGA 7950GT; Creative Audigy 2 ZS Platinum; 6prt Adaptec USB card; SevenTeam ST750Z-AF Modular supply; ASUS DRW 1608DW burner NEC 3520a burner; Seagate 7200.10 750GB SATAII HD; Seagate 7200.10 ES 500 GB SATAII HD; Excelstor 80GB SATAI HD; Coolermaster Stacker STC T01 UWK; it's modest, but paid for

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    But Q9300 only has small multiplier and it will be difficult to overclock.
    Is that right?
    I'm not native English.
    Sorry, if my English is not good enough...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cumberland City, TN, USA
    Posts
    647
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.
    System #1: DFI LP UT nF4 SLI-DR; Athy 64 s939 4800 Toledo (MKII) @ 3.01GHz w/Thermalright XP-120 Lapped & Panaflo w/Coollabs Liquid Metal compound; 2 x 1GB Team Xtreem Cronus Micron 5B-f DDR-500; EVGA 7950GT; Creative Audigy 2 ZS Platinum; 6prt Adaptec USB card; SevenTeam ST750Z-AF Modular supply; ASUS DRW 1608DW burner NEC 3520a burner; Seagate 7200.10 750GB SATAII HD; Seagate 7200.10 ES 500 GB SATAII HD; Excelstor 80GB SATAI HD; Coolermaster Stacker STC T01 UWK; it's modest, but paid for

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.
    I'm not native English.
    Sorry, if my English is not good enough...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cumberland City, TN, USA
    Posts
    647
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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...
    System #1: DFI LP UT nF4 SLI-DR; Athy 64 s939 4800 Toledo (MKII) @ 3.01GHz w/Thermalright XP-120 Lapped & Panaflo w/Coollabs Liquid Metal compound; 2 x 1GB Team Xtreem Cronus Micron 5B-f DDR-500; EVGA 7950GT; Creative Audigy 2 ZS Platinum; 6prt Adaptec USB card; SevenTeam ST750Z-AF Modular supply; ASUS DRW 1608DW burner NEC 3520a burner; Seagate 7200.10 750GB SATAII HD; Seagate 7200.10 ES 500 GB SATAII HD; Excelstor 80GB SATAI HD; Coolermaster Stacker STC T01 UWK; it's modest, but paid for

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. The best Mobo chipset for Intel Q9300?
    By saltydog806 in forum CPU Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2010, 09:12 AM
  2. q6600@3Ghz for 8800gtx tri sli???
    By kayawish24 in forum CPU Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 04:12 PM
  3. Q6600, 6 HD's, need power but need quiet
    By edro in forum PC Power Supply Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 12:55 AM
  4. ATI 2900XT crossfire + Q6600 possible with this psu?
    By npk in forum PC Power Supply Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-26-2007, 12:13 PM
  5. Q6600 owners... what is your VID?
    By graysky in forum CPU Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-23-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •