[thingie2]

Well I was originally going to get a Q9450 for my new build. But I've been talking to by brother and he seems to think the Q6700 will be better. They both have the same stock clock speeds, however the Q9450 is 45nm, but apparently the Q6700 is better for OCing as it has a higher multiplier? Sorry, don't know much about OCing but my brother has talked me into OCing my proccesor when I get it, as I should be able to get quite a bit more performace out of it with a Tuniq tower.

I am also willing to talk surgestions on other processors too (only intel though please) and i would prefer it if you could mention the reasons why it would be better for me to get that proccessor. I am willing to spend around the price of the Q9450, possibly a little more, but not alot (no QX9770's please although it would be nice to have one )

[Carbon]

I'd get the Q9450 just for the heat issue alone. Most reports on the Q6700 show it going to 3.4ghz-3.6ghz typically - the Q9450 is 45nm, cooler, and can OC pretty well too (~3.4ghz). The multiplier difference (X8 vs X10) is relatively significant, but of course you can always make that up in FSB boosts.

The max OC on both is going to be within a few hundred mhz and so you might as well get the cooler (= quieter) and more efficient processor, the Q9450.

And, of course, if you really want to OC, get the E8400. With a Tuniq and a good motherboard, 4.0+ is easy.

[Carbon]

Also, found this which seems to back up my opinion:

As folks have pointed out, the Q9450 will likely be FSB limited.
However, that limit will likely be 3.6Ghz+ depending on your board.
At these speeds, your Quad core should run relatively cool and efficiently.

The Q6600 is generally limited to 3.4 or sometimes 3.6 Ghz and runs quite warm on air at these speeds.

So, the Q6600 will not be be better OCer since the Q9450 should hit the same to slightly higher speeds. The Q6600 will hit a CPU will and the Q9450 will hit the FSB wall.

Also don't forget that the Q9450 will also perform slightly better clock for clock.

The Q6600, however, may be the best bang for the buck with it being slightly cheaper to start, needing slightly slower RAM, and OCing on a cheaper Mobo to it's limits.

However the Q9450 can be pushed faster and at cooler speeds.
Your choice.

[thingie2]

oh, ok Carbon. That's what I was thinking but me bro seemed to think that the Q6700 doesn't get that much hotter even though it is 65nm

[serverguy]

65nm is going to get a lot hotter.

Get the Q9450. Better processor

[Desertfish]

To be honest thingie2, although I'm not an expert on this issue, some of the stuff I've read on other message boards seems to support Carbon's opinion.

From a pure price/performance point of view, I woudn't go for either of them but follow the recommendation of the E8400.

Unless you really want a quad core, the E8400 seems the best option to me (and according to a quick check I just did on ebuyer):

- Q9450 (2.66Ghz) @ £200.64
- Q6700 (2.66Ghz) @ £159.99
- E8400 (3.0Ghz) @ £119.98
(all prices inc VAT.)

Again according to some sources I found on the interweb, the E8400 can easily be OC'd to 4.0Ghz+ (I guess one guy got it running stable @ 4.6Ghz).

Besides, going back to the quad vs due core issue, we all know that a quad core does not provide better performance under gaming over a dual core. Personally haven't found any significant performance increase between a dual and quad core processor for office applications either... So why spend the extra money. £80 difference between a Q9450 and an E8500 seems a lot of money to me. If you really want to spend that amount of money, you can easily put the £80 towards upgrading the RAM that you were planning to buy.

Cheers:
Chris

[thingie2]

ok, thanks all, I'll have to have a look at some benchmarks at duel vs quad for games and real life apps, then decide whether I think it's worth it.