|
|
#1
2nd Dec 2007, 09:20
|
|||
|
|||
|
ok somthing thats been bugging me for quite some time...
quite simply whats better?! Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9650 3.00GHz (1333FBS) Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6850 3.00GHz (1333FBS) The thing thats bugging me is the huge 12mb L2 cache on the QX9650 with this huge cache wouldnt it make it slower as the CPU would have to search though this before the next step (dont know what the next step is =S lol if anyone knows add it in xD!!) hope u understand! lol. Craiig looks forward to hearing from u! |
|
#2
2nd Dec 2007, 09:22
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
More cache = faster.
__________________
My System: Hybr!d
|
|
#3
5th Dec 2007, 01:22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The QX9650 is what I have, over-clocked as well. The L2 cache makes it much faster due to the fact that it is directly connected to the cpu, so there is no bus to travel on to really access it. The L2 is on the same chip as the cpu. |
|
#4
8th Dec 2007, 03:02
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
£669.74 inc VAT ?? Geez, you a millionnaire?
__________________
__________________
Woah! You found my secret sentence! lol, n00b. 
My System: =/
|
|
#5
9th Dec 2007, 08:08
|
|||
|
|||
|
Also the 9650 is based on the 45NM Processor technology. Which means the processor needs less energy then a 65NM QX6850 should do. That means that in some cases you should buy the 45NM 9650 to do not underpower your system becose the lack of wattage from your power supply. And it saves alot of money you spend on elektricity monthly.
|
