the 9300 is a quad 2.5 6 mb cache, and the 6700 is a quad 2.6 8 mb cache, which would be better for gaming and why?
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.
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.
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.
The Q6700 would be the better chose for gaming.
Because of it's slightly higher clock speed and 2Mb more cache.
If the Q6600 is an average of 7.4% slower and the Q6700 is clocked 11.1% faster then the Q6600...
would the 9300 OC higher than the 6700?
Prob not... prob very close if not less. The Q6700 clocks quite high. Over 4.00ghz I believe.
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.
Nope. The Q9300 has a much lower multiplier.would the 9300 OC higher than the 6700?