If I'm getting a Core2 Quad which should it be?

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:03 am

Most people seem to recommend the Q6600 but I've heard it runs hot which wouldn't be good if I'm trying to run silent as I'd need a mega fan. I've also had the Q9*** range recommended.

I've been told to not bother with the Q8*** series.

Does this sound good from a silent point of view and cooling? Should I go for the Q6600?

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:26 am

The Q6600 has an 8mb cache and a 266mhz FSB, which gave it a high multiplier and thus a lot of overclocking ability if you were willing to put in the time and effort to cool it well. As a 65nm chip, it's always going to draw more power and put out more heat than any of the 45nm chips (Q8/9xxx). While the Q8xxx chips only have 4mb cache, from what I've seen they still perform pretty much equally to the Q6600 in spite of its larger cache.

Intel has kind of gone to cache overkill these days on the theory it's better to have too much than not enough. As for what's right for you, it comes down to how much you care about power and noise, and how much you want to overclock. IMHO, the Q8200 is a plenty powerful chip for just about any kind of computing you can think of and still provides enough headroom to OC up to 2.8ghz without much trouble. The Q6600 is a 105 watt TDP chip versus 95 watts for all the 45nm chips, of which the Q8200 is really more like 65, but Intel didn't want to sell it as an energy saving chip.

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:50 am

Hmm everywhere I ask I get conflicting advice. I'd prefer silence and less power consumption mainly as it's in the front room. However I don't want something thats no good performance wise either. But I won't be overclocking, never have.

curtisfong · Post by **curtisfong** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:25 am

Low voltage chip like the Q9550S, but hundreds less expensive - around $250

Or, a Q9550 from Dell for $232

A Q9400 from Dell for $180 is also a good buy (read the coupon sites for dell coupons).

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:30 am

I didn't know it was possible to buy a chip from Dell, thats pretty good. I'm in the UK though, I'll have to check that out.

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:57 am

AZBrandon wrote:The Q6600 is a 105 watt TDP chip versus 95 watts for all the 45nm chips, of which the Q8200 is really more like 65, but Intel didn't want to sell it as an energy saving chip.

Actually, all Q6600s available now are G0 stepping, which are 95W.

ACook · Post by **ACook** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:22 pm

the Q8200 is very easy to OC to 7x400 =2800MHz, stock cooler doesn't have to go over 60% which is pretty quiet. imagine with a proper cooler.

it's one of not the cheapest quads around, and going down atm.

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:46 pm

I won't be overclocking though.

How would I be best cooling one of the quads, I'm guessing passive is not a good idea. I've posted in the CPU cooling forum too but thought I'd ask here.

I can't fit one of the huge tower things though, only have 130mm clearance to fit the cooler and fan into. Which seems to be making things difficult.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:31 pm

45nm chip or what's the point?

it isnt 2007.

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:04 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:45nm chip or what's the point?

it isnt 2007.

We're not all rich enough to be able to afford the latest and greatest in expensive hardware.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:37 pm

Monkeh16 wrote:We're not all rich enough to be able to afford the latest and greatest in expensive hardware.

The Q8200 and Q6600 are roughly the same price in the US currently, but I'm not sure about other markets.

Q6600: $185

Q8200: $170

Q8300: $190

It's not so much a money question as one of architecture. The Q6600 is going to be hotter by virtue of the fact it's 65nm based, but of course it has twice as much cache. The Q8200 will certainly run cooler, plus it's cheaper! The Q8300 is stock clocked even slightly faster (2.5ghz) but is another $5 more and of course has the smaller cache. I still think the 45nm are the way to go, and I'm cheap - I'd just get the Q8200.

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:29 am

Are the Q9's better than the Q8's if I can afford it then?

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:40 am

AZBrandon wrote:
Monkeh16 wrote:We're not all rich enough to be able to afford the latest and greatest in expensive hardware.
The Q8200 and Q6600 are roughly the same price in the US currently, but I'm not sure about other markets.

Q6600: $185

Q8200: $170

Q8300: $190

It's not so much a money question as one of architecture. The Q6600 is going to be hotter by virtue of the fact it's 65nm based, but of course it has twice as much cache. The Q8200 will certainly run cooler, plus it's cheaper! The Q8300 is stock clocked even slightly faster (2.5ghz) but is another $5 more and of course has the smaller cache. I still think the 45nm are the way to go, and I'm cheap - I'd just get the Q8200.

The Q6600 won't run much hotter, has more cache, and with the lower FSB and higher multiplier, is an easier and more effective overclock (for, I must add, no difference in heat output). I'd say the SLACR is still the best value for the money.

Are the Q9's better than the Q8's if I can afford it then?

Yes, the 9 series is better. More cache, higher multipliers, especially the Q9x50 range.

lm · Post by lm » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:14 am

It will be the last cpu you will use for your current mobo and ram, so better get as good one as you can, so you maximize the lifetime of your mobo and ram. Q9550 should be a pretty good choice without being ridiculously expensive.

Next time you are going to upgrade your cpu, you have to get new mobo and ram too...

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:51 pm

stephentw wrote:Are the Q9's better than the Q8's if I can afford it then?

Well if you want to spend another $60 (the Q9400 vs. the Q8200). The cache helps some, but the higher multiplier is where most of the speed increase come from. The whole point of dropping a Q8200 into a board and then telling the board the FSB is 400MHz, not 333, is the ease and stability of the thing. You can pull this stunt with both processors but it seems most people simply want the Q9400 performance at the Q8200 price. At 2.8 the OCd Q8200 should prove better. Boards rated at FSB400 won't have any issues with that bus speed, compared to my older P965 chipset, which is totally stable with Prime 95 and anything else, but Windows Update simply refuses to start, which I view as a benefit.

Note - People go on and on about cache size, even to the point of disregarding actual results. Some Opterons with twice the cache of ordinary X2's perform only slightly better. And cache is only half the story, the other half would be the algorithms that go into running it. So no it's not as simple as more cache is better. It is, up to a point, and Xeons and 12MB cache's may be worth it in very high cost environments like super busy servers. And of course Intel would just love to sell you a few million more transistors, cause that's where the money is.

The biggest complaint about the Q8xxx series is that it doesn't have Virtualization Technology. Well boo-hoo about that. VT was interesting when single processors looked like dual processors and older Pentium 4's could run SMP folding. The performance gain? A whopping 5%. As a home user you think you can see or feel a 5% difference in CPU? My hat's off to you if you can. Maybe during folding SMP checkpoints, not anywhere else.

I'd say get the Q8200, then get CAS 4 DDR2-800, you can run FSB and memory at 1:1 if you chose to do so. If you really want just a drop in and go system then get the Q9xxx. but once you get to the price of a Q9550 ask yourself if an i7 920 wouldn't be worth it? That's the problem, you can do this what if business all day. But in using older RAM and stuff, a Q8200 at 2.8 will run neck and neck with that Q9950. On need only look at what happens when some crazy person take an E5300 with a really small cache, all the way to 4GHz. The faster the speed the lower the latency, which is what the cache is suppose to overcome.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:35 pm

q6600 is dead. It's only for those with older boards.

as a recommended section for advice, thats the best advice I can give.

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:37 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:q6600 is dead. It's only for those with older boards.

No, it is not. It's more cost effective than a Q8200.

aristide1 wrote:The biggest complaint about the Q8xxx series is that it doesn't have Virtualization Technology. Well boo-hoo about that. VT was interesting when single processors looked like dual processors and older Pentium 4's could run SMP folding. The performance gain? A whopping 5%. As a home user you think you can see or feel a 5% difference in CPU? My hat's off to you if you can. Maybe during folding SMP checkpoints, not anywhere else.

Uuuhhh. I don't think you quite grasp what virtualisation is.

confusion · Post by **confusion** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:23 am

stephentw wrote:I won't be overclocking though.

Said the OP. So after that, why is he still getting all these non-helpful recommendations based on how well a particular quad is suited to overclocking?

I have no experience to add, but will mention that some motherboards won't work with the older stepping of the Q6600 due to the higher power requirements.

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:54 am

confusion wrote:
stephentw wrote:I won't be overclocking though.
Said the OP. So after that, why is he still getting all these non-helpful recommendations based on how well a particular quad is suited to overclocking?

And still, a Q6600 is in some ways better than a Q8200. I'd say they're roughly equal in performance, and the Q6600 is more future proof.

I have no experience to add, but will mention that some motherboards won't work with the older stepping of the Q6600 due to the higher power requirements.

Good luck finding a B3?

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:51 pm

6600 is more future proof if you are living in 2006.

stephentw · Post by **stephentw** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:47 am

Thanks again guys, I ended up getting the 9550

Wibla · Post by **Wibla** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:13 am

Good choice

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:58 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:6600 is more future proof if you are living in 2006.

I'd imagine so, it didn't even exist in 2006. And if you'd recommend a Q8200 over a Q6600, you really need to get looked at: The Q8200 has a slower clock, less cache, lacks VT, and a lower multiplier. These all combine to make it an inferior processor by far.

stephentw wrote:Thanks again guys, I ended up getting the 9550

An excellent choice, all the features, none of the cripple.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:51 am

I dont recommend crappy processors. q8200 is one of those as well.

q9550 was a nice choice. You want as much cache as possible. Every chip when it comes out, someone says, "cache increase wattage and has not a big impact" only to realize a few months later that the caches has a huge impact on gaming, windows, small things and, well anything.

I bought a AMD 939 socket 2.2ghz dual core with 512KB cache per core instead of 1 meg. People were saying how its a minimal performance difference for more heat and price. Well, that was complete crap for advice as it rocks out with double cache on everything a user does. just a vent/tip. Max ram, max cache, cant go wrong with those two rules.

I also dont recommend anything but the very latest intel chipsets for intel, and the very latest chipsets for amd.

The computer IS the processor. everything else is secondary to its performance.

The only reason people recommend a lower chip, or a really old socket or board is because thats what they are stuck with. thats golden rule One in forums. I think the second rule is people will advocate you spending 350 dollars on a system instead of 425 dollars. Why waste money at all and instead, get the modern system. 75 dollars is meaningless when you look at your system and say, This is old crap. Cant afford 425 then you cant afford 350. (etc)

Monkeh16 · Post by **Monkeh16** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:08 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:I dont recommend crappy processors. q8200 is one of those as well.

The Q6600 is not crappy. On a budget, it's the best value quad.

Cant afford 425 then you cant afford 350. (etc)

That's bullshit and you know it..

confusion · Post by **confusion** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:00 pm

Monkeh16 wrote:
confusion wrote:I have no experience to add, but will mention that some motherboards won't work with the older stepping of the Q6600 due to the higher power requirements.
Good luck finding a B3?

It was just a note of something to be aware of. I have no idea what one might still find in stores but it's better to be informed than to get an unpleasant surprise. I know that Newegg for instance was still randomly shipping B3s long after the replacement was out because there were people complaining about it on various message boards.

I don't know how many boards have this issue but my Intel DP43TF does.

HammerSandwich · Post by **HammerSandwich** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:13 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:The computer IS the processor. everything else is secondary to its performance.

I ain't saying that the CPU doesn't matter, but the overall system is what counts in the end. I'd much rather have an E7400 with 4GB than an E8400 with 2GB.

If I'm getting a Core2 Quad which should it be?

If I'm getting a Core2 Quad which should it be?

Xenon L3360