Which CPU would you recommend for gaming + multitasking?

Which CPU would you recommend?

  • Total voters
    32
The Q6700 is much cheaper now, and better priced for it's performance. I would recommend the Q6700.
 
I vote the Q6600.

Although to be honest I have had some mixed results using this chip, but thats most likely because I got a bad batch :( I can't oc my Q6600 any further then 2.8GHZ on a 680i board XMS-2 DDR2 800 ram and an aftermarket cooler. Usually I am pretty good at ocing but no such luck here. I tried every different voltage and fsb\ram divider setting under the sun and still the chip refuses to be stable at anything above 2.8:(

Oh well, even then this is a great chip its the way to go I would think as others have said the gain between 45mm and 65mm is minimal when compared to price.
 
[-0MEGA-];966254 said:
The Q6700 is much cheaper now, and better priced for it's performance. I would recommend the Q6700.
Click to expand...

Yeah the Q6700 price halved! ;)

But I still think the Q6600 is better for the $$$
 
Maximum PC just did a section on two of these three CPUs ( Q6600 and Q9300) and long story shot, the Q9300 won three out of the five rounds. The Q9300 is a tad better in performance, overclocking potential, and specs. So I'd go with the Q9300, personally.
 
How would the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 fair up with the other CPUs? It looks like the Q6600 is my winner though.
 
royalmarine said:
the difference between 45 nm and 65nm is feck all compared to the price difference between the 2.

the q6600 kills the other's when its bang for buck.
Click to expand...

this is an untrue statement

Q9300=284.99 on newegg(274.99 OEM)....higher native clock(2.5), higher native FSB(1300), 45nm tech (allows for higher OC generally), lower power consumption at highest maufacturer spec
Q6600=219.99 on newegg (no OEM available at the time, which is usually the case for this chip)...has slightly more L2 cache, which is misleading in this case because the 6600 has 2 L2 modules equalling 8Mb while the 9300 has 1 L2 module for 6 Mb, higher voltage which in general means higher temps, other wise they are very similar.

I think the benefits of the Q9300 far outweigh the measly $65 dollar price increase (at least it doesn't cost a grand like the much over-hyped extreme editions)

and for people that think the 20nm space difference in the architecture doesn't make a difference, maybe you should read up on thermodynamics in electronic engineering before you open your yap again.

mobo-ASUS P5E3 wifi ap@n
CPU-Intel Q9300 @2.5GHz
RAM-4GB Patroit EP DDR3 1333 (2 DIMMS)
HDD-WD Raptor 150GB @ 10,000rpm
VGA-ZOTAC Geforce 9600GT 512MB, 256-bit
PSU-Cooler Master Real Power Pro 750W
 
kenpomaster said:
this is an untrue statement

Q9300=284.99 on newegg(274.99 OEM)....higher native clock(2.5), higher native FSB(1300), 45nm tech (allows for higher OC generally), lower power consumption at highest maufacturer spec
Q6600=219.99 on newegg (no OEM available at the time, which is usually the case for this chip)...has slightly more L2 cache, which is misleading in this case because the 6600 has 2 L2 modules equalling 8Mb while the 9300 has 1 L2 module for 6 Mb, higher voltage which in general means higher temps, other wise they are very similar.

I think the benefits of the Q9300 far outweigh the measly $65 dollar price increase (at least it doesn't cost a grand like the much over-hyped extreme editions)

and for people that think the 20nm space difference in the architecture doesn't make a difference, maybe you should read up on thermodynamics in electronic engineering before you open your yap again.

mobo-ASUS P5E3 wifi ap@n
CPU-Intel Q9300 @2.5GHz
RAM-4GB Patroit EP DDR3 1333 (2 DIMMS)
HDD-WD Raptor 150GB @ 10,000rpm
VGA-ZOTAC Geforce 9600GT 512MB, 256-bit
PSU-Cooler Master Real Power Pro 750W
Click to expand...

what is the diff between 65nm and 45nm? all u said was the price and being able to over clock abit more but no real diff ?
i dunno where i can read up about thermodynamics
 
ramodkk said:
Why don't you OC your Q9300?
Click to expand...

i recently (just before i built my new comp) broke my cooling fan (am using the stock fan now) and am waiting on the new one to arrive before i start OC'in it, because while im sure i could take it to at least 3GHZ with the stock fan, am i going to take any chances? no.

anyway back to the debate at hand. the 9300 will run faster clock speeds natively, higher OC'ability and less heat(because of the 45nm tech), less power consumed for higher stock speed(which also translates into higher overclockability generally)....i don't really think the 6600 can shake a stick at the 9300, the benchmarks are very clear in this case ex:Q6600 ran Unreal Tournament 3 at 14 frames per second slower than the 9300, and was considerably slower with 3dmark06. the best cpu for ur money is the 9300 because of its OC ability

for those that think im just talking to talk look here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_9.html#sect0

the 1 exception to my case is the OC'd 6600 at 3.6Ghz vs the OC'd 9300 at 3.5, the OC'd 6600 wins in a few of the tests because it's OC'd farther, but I would say you can take the 9300 higher because of the lower heat, and even at a lower clock speed it still beat out the 6600 in a couple cases because the signals have to travel a shorter distance on the 9300 (20nm difference again)
 
Last edited:
The q6600. It's gives me a 5.9 Vista score. You can compare that to the score of your other components and see if it's good enough to match your whole setup without being overkill. I have had no problems with my 6600 and it does not limit my gaming experience.
 
Last edited:
i think that its undebatable
the Q9300 is proven to have better performance as well as OC ablity its just a question of whether your mobo supports it or not
 
Garethman!!` said:
Thanks for everybody's input, I see Newegg have now priced the Q6600 at $214.99, truly outstanding price now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017&nm_mc=OTC-RSS&cm_mmc=OTC-RSS-_-CPUs+%2f+Processors-_-intel-_-N82E16819115017

Personally I think Ill go for a Q9300 or Q9450 processor as it has to be future proof for a couple of years, also, I have heard the Q9450 can be overclocked to 3.8GHz stable? If this is true, it would be such a bargain.
Click to expand...
yes it is possible even on air and make shure you get a good overclocking motherboard
 
kenpomaster said:
i recently (just before i built my new comp) broke my cooling fan (am using the stock fan now) and am waiting on the new one to arrive before i start OC'in it, because while im sure i could take it to at least 3GHZ with the stock fan, am i going to take any chances? no.
Click to expand...

You should take it to 3.0GHz with stock fan and record temps so you can compare the temps to those with your new cooler. ;)

Garethman!!` said:
Indeed, I definitely want a x38 or x48 motherboard at minimum.
Click to expand...

Why do you want an X38/48?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top