Q6600 versus Q9300

[DoubleHelix747]

I can buy either Q6600 or Q9300 for $180. Any suggestions on which is a better choice?

Q6600
2.4GHz
65nm
Higher than Q9300 (?)
8MB L2 Cache
1066 FSB
Overclocks very well

Q9300
2.5GHz
45nm
95W
6MB L2 Cache
1333 FSB
Overclocking limited to about ~3.0GHz

I will OC some but not to the wazoo - longevity trumps over extreme overclocking.

 

[Paraguay11]

Q9300 will perform a bit better and save you money in the long run on electricity. It also has a couple of extra instruction sets which based on historical trends developers will use in say 20 years.

 

[haffey]

If you don't care about overclocking, go for the Q9300. Mine went up to about 3.3GHz but the VCore was way too high for me, so I bumped it back down to 3.2GHz at nearly stock voltages. My limitation was my NB temps, I think. I don't have a NB temp sensor though.

 

[Gillbot]

Q9300

 

[Assimilator1]

Am I right in saying the Q9300 isn't as overclockable because of it's lower multiplier & high def FSB? (as opposed to the CPU itself which pre-sumeabley would o/c more if it were unlocked).

 

[DrewSG3]

I went with the Q9300

 

[DoubleHelix747]

BTW, Microcenter has the 9300 for $179.99. However, the product title is:

IPSG Intel® Boxed Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300

What does IPSG mean here and does it have any significance?

 

[ihyagp]

Get the q9300. In the short term, a few apps might like the q6600's larger caches. But in the future that will disappear in the face of more software using SSE4.1 instructions. Plus 45nm chips overclock well.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Am I right in saying the Q9300 isn't as overclockable because of it's lower multiplier & high def FSB? (as opposed to the CPU itself which pre-sumeabley would o/c more if it were unlocked).

exactly

 

[JMapleton]

You've got to go with the newer tech, q9300.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

9x multi with the Q6600 = EASY OC...
whats the multi on that 9300? i bet its low. so u wont get much even with a 400mhz fsb

my Q6600 oc's like mad even under low voltage...

 

[DDDavey]

So the 9300 is the better buy and performer right now, but the 6600 would be the way to go if you are more into tinkering with overclocking?

6600 seems to be so popular, 2660 reviews vs. 200 reviews.

It's also not the same price or even close, at least on Newegg. Am I missing something?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: DDDavey
So the 9300 is the better buy and performer right now, but the 6600 would be the way to go if you are more into tinkering with overclocking?

6600 seems to be so popular, 2660 reviews vs. 200 reviews.

It's also not the same price or even close, at least on Newegg. Am I missing something?

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
BTW, Microcenter has the 9300 for $179.99. However, the product title is:

IPSG Intel® Boxed Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300

What does IPSG mean here and does it have any significance?

I would go with the Q9300.

 

[DDDavey]

D'oh missed that post, thank you.

 

[allies]

I have a DS3 Rev 3.3... will the $180 Q9300 work on my board? It looks like it... should?? With an unofficial BIOS? Thanks in advance guys.

PS: I'd go with the Q9300 if I could for the lower power consumption

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
BTW, Microcenter has the 9300 for $179.99. However, the product title is:

IPSG Intel® Boxed Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300

What does IPSG mean here and does it have any significance?

I'm not sure, but I bought my Q9300 from Micro Center and it was also labeled "IPSG" on the website, but the boxed CPU was still sealed like a normal retail chip.

 

[Denithor]

Q9300 hands down. Cooler running, less power consumption (lower power bills), faster, SSE4.1 - overall better chip.

Q9300 beats Q6600 across the board

Take a wander through that article, it's well worth 10-15 minutes of your time before spending $200 on a CPU.

 

[Assimilator1]

Thanks for the link , only I might now be more tempted to upgrade my Q6600

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Am I right in saying the Q9300 isn't as overclockable because of it's lower multiplier & high def FSB? (as opposed to the CPU itself which pre-sumeabley would o/c more if it were unlocked).

exactly

Thanks :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
9x multi with the Q6600 = EASY OC...
whats the multi on that 9300? i bet its low. so u wont get much even with a 400mhz fsb

my Q6600 oc's like mad even under low voltage...

Q9300 runs on a x7.5 multiplier on a def FSB of 1333 QDR (333 MHz), so I can see why it would be such a poor overclocker, with a 450MHz FSB you're still 'only' looking at 3.375 GHz.
I think 450 MHz FSB is a fairly common upper limit for many mbrds?

However if DoubleHelix747 doesn't want to go over 3GHz (400 MHz FSB) then yea the Q9300 would be the better buy [edit] if prices are near equal.

 

[dbcooper1]

Q9300 is also going to be easier on your motherboard if that's a consideration.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
I can buy either Q6600 or Q9300 for $180. Any suggestions on which is a better choice?

Q6600
2.4GHz
65nm
Higher than Q9300 (?)
8MB L2 Cache
1066 FSB
Overclocks very well

Q9300
2.5GHz
45nm
95W
6MB L2 Cache
1333 FSB
Overclocking limited to about ~3.0GHz

I will OC some but not to the wazoo - longevity trumps over extreme overclocking.

Q6600 ~3500mhz

 

[Assimilator1]

I've just been looking at prices for these CPUs, I don't know about US prices but here in the UK the Q9300 is quite a bit more expensive than the Q6600.

Q6600 £150 (was ~£120 some weeks back!)
Q9300 £186

For the UK at least the Q6600 is the winner here bang/buck. (I've edited my earlier post with a qualifier).

 

[dug777]

The extra cache of the Q6600 is nice for gaming, as I recall.

I own a Q6600, so I'm biased, but as I recently noted on here, my box is very power efficient (and cool) using speedstep and my mobo's power management hardware/software (Asus EPU-6).

My 'old' 65nm Q6600 in a P5Q PRO mobo, 4GB DDR2, PCI-E HD3450 256MB, a 750GB 32mb cache Spinpoint, PCI HDTV card, stock hsf and two 120mm case fans ticks over between 55-60W in light office/net/winamp duties. It would be at 1.6Ghz and speedstepped down to about .98vcore in that scenario.

I don't know how much real difference you'd see from a 45nm chip there (and more importantly, whether it's worth the extra cash).

Unless you were running at stock and the the 9300 was less than the % price increase that it held in weighted % performance increase over the 6600 in your main applications, then I'd get the Q6600.

Add in that the Q6600 will easily OC to comfortably roger the 9300 in every department and I think I'm building a persuasive argument

 

[n7]

No OCing = Q9300
Light OCing = Q9300
Heavy OCing = Q6600

 

[Arcanedeath]

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
BTW, Microcenter has the 9300 for $179.99. However, the product title is:

IPSG Intel® Boxed Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300

What does IPSG mean here and does it have any significance?

Note IPSG stands for International Products Sourcing Group its just Microcenters house brand and they slap their name on various OEM parts they are also responsible for Powerspec desktops & Winbook Laptops.

and I'm going to say go w/ the Q9300 it just makes more sense vs todays mostly poor overclocking Q6600's.

 

[Assimilator1]

Todays poor overclocking Q6600s??