Intel Q6700 or Q9300

[rudie75]

Hy all, this is my first post in this forum.
I'm about to get a new pc, but i have a question regarding CPU's, i hope it's not been asked before.

My question is witch one of these cpu's is faster, i've looked for reviews on the subject but haven't found any. (That answered my question).

Q6700 4x2666 mhz 2x4096kb L2 Cache 1066fsb Kentsfield core
q9300 4x2500 mhz 2x3072kb L2 Cache 1333fsb Yorkfield core

Thanks for any replies.

[simple_inhibition]

first off, welcome to the forums rudie! hope you enjoy this little spot in the internet now to get to your questions, i believe the Q9300 is roughly 10% faster than a Q6600. the Q6700 has a 9% increase in clock speed over the Q6600. its tough to say really in terms of here and now. however i would highly recommend the Q9300 over the Q6700 for a few reasons. #1, the Q9300's built on the 45nm high-k process. not only does it run much cooler than the 65nm process used on the Q6700, it also uses less power and theoretically should allow greater overclocks. #2, SSE4. its not very prevalent right now, however once SSE4 is put into more applications, the Q9300 will gain performance over the Q6700. #3, the Q9300 has the faster 1333mhz fsb compared to the 1066mhz fsb found on the Q6700. more bandwidth to the system is always a good thing. that being said, the 7.5 multi on the Q9300 is a limiting factor when overclocking. also it only has 6mb of L2 compared to 8mb. in the end however, my vote goes to the Q9300. its a newer and more efficient architecture when compared to the Q6700.

[rudie75]

Originally Posted by simple_inhibition

first off, welcome to the forums rudie! hope you enjoy this little spot in the internet now to get to your questions, i believe the Q9300 is roughly 10% faster than a Q6600. the Q6700 has a 9% increase in clock speed over the Q6600. its tough to say really in terms of here and now. however i would highly recommend the Q9300 over the Q6700 for a few reasons. #1, the Q9300's built on the 45nm high-k process. not only does it run much cooler than the 65nm process used on the Q6700, it also uses less power and theoretically should allow greater overclocks. #2, SSE4. its not very prevalent right now, however once SSE4 is put into more applications, the Q9300 will gain performance over the Q6700. #3, the Q9300 has the faster 1333mhz fsb compared to the 1066mhz fsb found on the Q6700. more bandwidth to the system is always a good thing. that being said, the 7.5 multi on the Q9300 is a limiting factor when overclocking. also it only has 6mb of L2 compared to 8mb. in the end however, my vote goes to the Q9300. its a newer and more efficient architecture when compared to the Q6700.

Ok, thanks for the info.
Also, since posting here, the q6700 went out of stock, and they lowered the price of the q9300 by €20. (The were the same price)

As for me enjoying the site/forum......already did, some great reviews and interesting topics to read

[screwballl]

looking at the items in your sig....
Why a Raptor? There is little to no real world benefit of using a Raptor over the modern SATAII (or SATA 3.0Gb) hard drives. For the money you spend there, you may as well get two 500GB hard drives.
As for the CPU... I myself would suggest the Q9300 since it is newer and the higher fsb which will give you better performance over 2MB more cache, plus it will run cooler... but s_i already mentioned the important info.

[Parker]

+1 for Q9300 and Seagate 500GB!!!

Don't waste money on a Raptor or Samsung drives. Get the new Seagate 7200.11 32MB Cache drives. I've got two of them and must say they are really really fast!

BTW, Welcome to HardwareLogic!

[onebxr]

There is nothing wrong with samsung drives. I have been running over 4TB of various sizes of samsung drives for the past 3 years. They are quiet and dependable. and (knock on wood) never had one fail yet.
-1

[rudie75]

Originally Posted by screwballl

looking at the items in your sig....
Why a Raptor? There is little to no real world benefit of using a Raptor over the modern SATAII (or SATA 3.0Gb) hard drives. For the money you spend there, you may as well get two 500GB hard drives.
As for the CPU... I myself would suggest the Q9300 since it is newer and the higher fsb which will give you better performance over 2MB more cache, plus it will run cooler... but s_i already mentioned the important info.

Well, i was going to use it to install windows and programs etc, because i was under the impression that they were faster than 7400rpm drives. But offcourse it went out of stock, so that takes care of that.

As for the cpu, i'm getting the q9300, but i'm wondering if i should get 3rd party cooler or just stick to the stock cooler since the antec 900 already has excellent cooling

[gvblake22]

The stock cooler should be sufficient for the processor if you stay at stock speeds. But if you ever want to try your hand at overclocking (or just want the comfort of having better temperatures or lower noise), then a better heatsink is a definite must, especially for quad core.

[qazwsx]

Originally Posted by onebxr

There is nothing wrong with samsung drives. I have been running over 4TB of various sizes of samsung drives for the past 3 years. They are quiet and dependable. and (knock on wood) never had one fail yet.
-1

+1, ive never used a samsung drive, but I wouldnt hesitate too. In my experence samsung products like phones, TV's, DVD players ect have always been top-notch and very reliable

EDIT: sorry, I did have an old 40gb samsung drive that went for 6 years and still works to my knowledge. (now its in a cardboard box)

[screwballl]

Even with no overclocking I tend to suggest an aftermarket cooler but that is more of my preference. I only have one system here with the stock cooler (well 2, one is a older Dell OEM setup), and that is my E2140 system, it is running around 38ºC under load so for now I am not too worried about it. For a newer quad core I would suggest an aftermarket cooler.