q9300 vs q6700
- Thread starter glennxx1
- Start date
Respital
Active Member
The Q6700 would be the better chose for gaming.
Because of it's slightly higher clock speed and 2Mb more cache.
The Q9300 would be a slightly worse chose for gaming.
Because it has a little less cache then the Q6700.
But this processor does have a few advantages over the Q6700.
Because of it's 45nm manufacturing technology compared to the 65nm of the Q6700 it will run cooler under the same amount of load. And i'm guessing (don't quote me on this) it's also better because it has a higher amount of transistors.
Hope this helps.
Quick69GTO
New Member
The June 2008 issue of Maximum PC has an article on just this subject.
The 9300 came out on top.
Oops, sorry. It was the Q6600 vs. the 9300.
The 9300 came out on top.
Oops, sorry. It was the Q6600 vs. the 9300.
Last edited:
Respital
Active Member
Okay unless you would like to type off something or give us a link to that article that is spam because your just advertising a magazine, not actually telling the us pros and cons of these processors.
Why so harsh? He's correct...the Q9300 does perform slightly better than the Q6600. (From what I've seen/others have told me).
He obviously wasn't trying to advertise for Maximum PC...he's providing a source, that's all. Take it easy...
Last edited:
If you're gaming, you don't want a quad core anyways, you want an E8400. Quads are a bit of a waste at the moment as most apps aren't able to use all four cores. Two will sit idle 95% of the time.
It's fine if you're doing a lot of multitasking I suppose.. But there aren't many people around that can claim true mulitasking usage on here.
It's fine if you're doing a lot of multitasking I suppose.. But there aren't many people around that can claim true mulitasking usage on here.
maroon1
New Member
You forgot the fact that Q9300 has an improved architecture. So, just because Q9300 has less cache and less clock speed doesn't mean it performs worse.
maroon1
New Member
And who told you that 11% higher clock means 11% higher speed on average ?
11% higher clock might give you 11% increase in some specific applications, but not on average, because not all applications are CPU-intensive.
Timo
New Member
In games I normally see an performance improvement of a percentage that is greater then the clock percentage. But ofcourse this normally means you're CPU was bottlenecking a bit
Still, I'd take Q6700 over Q9300. Cheaper and you won't notice much difference (well, not any would be a better word but ofcourse 3Dmark06 shows a little difference... Very little).
Still, I'd take Q6700 over Q9300. Cheaper and you won't notice much difference (well, not any would be a better word but ofcourse 3Dmark06 shows a little difference... Very little).
ChrisUlrich
Active Member
Prob not... prob very close if not less. The Q6700 clocks quite high. Over 4.00ghz I believe.
Quick69GTO
New Member
Sorry to those who thought I was spamming. It wasn't intentional.
The magazine article goes into more depth than anyone is willing to write here in this forum so that's why I mentioned it.
There is no link to the article so I can't give you all one.
Later
The magazine article goes into more depth than anyone is willing to write here in this forum so that's why I mentioned it.
There is no link to the article so I can't give you all one.
Later
lovely?
Active Member
your partially right.
the only reason today's q9300's cannot overclock higher then the older series is solely motherboard technology. 45nm is inherently better at overclocking, but since motherboards cant handle fsb's of 2400mhz, the clocks are severely limited.
Timo
New Member
Either way, Q6700 will clock way way higher. Q9300 hasn't gotten over 3.8Ghz stable, and I have seen PhaseChange cooled Q6700 go to atleast 4.2Ghz... Which is very very high...
I reckon a Q6600 would even OC higher then the Q9450 because if I am correct the Q6600 will go over 3.8Ghz and stay stable (with the correct Voltage tweaks).
Geoff
VIP Member
Nope. The Q9300 has a much lower multiplier.
What do you think of OC q6700 with TT Ultra 120 to 4,00 GHz?
Can it be done.
Wich memory/Asus motherboard would you recommend for this kind of attempt.
Im building a new machine for 3D rendering so I want something to OC wildy and then to put it back on stock when not needed.
p.s. one thing is not clear to me when you talk aboth q9300 and q6700 at 3,50 GHz, wont q9300 preform better at rendering speed, couse its a 45nm and q6700 65nm?!
Thanx people
Can it be done.
Wich memory/Asus motherboard would you recommend for this kind of attempt.
Im building a new machine for 3D rendering so I want something to OC wildy and then to put it back on stock when not needed.
p.s. one thing is not clear to me when you talk aboth q9300 and q6700 at 3,50 GHz, wont q9300 preform better at rendering speed, couse its a 45nm and q6700 65nm?!
Thanx people