when will the good yorkfields come out?

[MrPink]

as much as i'd like to plunk a 45nm yorkfield in my new future build, they don't seem like they outperform the kentsfield by very much. You know, that one, the Q6600...

I thought I was settled on the Q9450, but some googling and well intentioned research on google led me to the sad conclusion that it really isn't that much better than the Q6600. At least not better enough to justify the price difference of >$100.

for one thing, the Q9450 has a multi of 8 vs. a multi of 9 on the Q6600. Also, the FSB limit of the Q9450 seems to be the same as the q6600, about 470 or 480ish. While the Q9450 can edge out the Q6600 when they are clocked the same (idk, some kind of architecture improvement of one core over the other?), the Q6600 can hit high FSB just as easily as the yorkfield quad.

Yes, the yorkfield is 45nm and produces less heat/consumes less electricity, but if the FSB wall between the Q6600 and the Q9450 is essentially the same, why does it matter? Those reduced temps might be more appreciated if the multi was higher, 9 or 9.5 instead of 8.

What should I do, my faith in the yorkfield has been shaken

[skoreanime]

I know, eh? (Yes, that was blatantly a Canadian eh. )

I'm happy with my Q6600. I realized when I bought it that the Q9450 really didn't benefit from the cost difference. Sure, it might come with a few new things, but when it comes down to it...I don't need those things. My Q6600 has been performing admirably for the past few months I've had it. I'm a multitasking fiend and I can easily say it outdoes my old E6600 by far.

If you can get a Q6600 (G0 revision) for cheap, I say go for it.

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by MrPink

as much as i'd like to plunk a 45nm yorkfield in my new future build, they don't seem like they outperform the kentsfield by very much. You know, that one, the Q6600...

I thought I was settled on the Q9450, but some googling and well intentioned research on google led me to the sad conclusion that it really isn't that much better than the Q6600. At least not better enough to justify the price difference of >$100.

for one thing, the Q9450 has a multi of 8 vs. a multi of 9 on the Q6600. Also, the FSB limit of the Q9450 seems to be the same as the q6600, about 470 or 480ish. While the Q9450 can edge out the Q6600 when they are clocked the same (idk, some kind of architecture improvement of one core over the other?), the Q6600 can hit high FSB just as easily as the yorkfield quad.

Yes, the yorkfield is 45nm and produces less heat/consumes less electricity, but if the FSB wall between the Q6600 and the Q9450 is essentially the same, why does it matter? Those reduced temps might be more appreciated if the multi was higher, 9 or 9.5 instead of 8.

What should I do, my faith in the yorkfield has been shaken

Truth: Anything above 400 FSB on a Q6600 is either a suicide run, or you'll need really good water cooling for it.

Truth: Q9450's max FSB wall is not 480. There is one motherboard that can get 500 FSB on every single Q9450 like nothing: ASUS P5E-VM HDMI. Conclusion: either all other chipsets are trash, bugged, or ASUS just pulled off a miracle: first hard-core mATX motherboard in the world.

Truth: Q6600 maxes out at mostly 3.6GHz, while Q9450 goes up to 3.8GHz on average.

Truth: Not all Q6600 goes to 3.6GHz (with a reasonable voltage), just like how not all Q9450 goes up to 4.0GHz (with a reasonable voltage), but all Q9450 can go to 3.8GHz.

Truth: The most common overclock of Q6600 is 3.0GHz - 3.2GHz. The most common overclock of Q9450 is 3.4GHz - 3.6GHz.

Last truth: The tidbit about the motherboard is true... and it's inexplicable. Not even ASUS knows what's happening. Most are assuming that BIOSes on other boards need an update. Myself, I assume it's just that this board was built in a way that it becomes a golden one for 45nm quad.

That said, with the ASUS P5E-VM HDMI, 4.0GHz is possible even with Q9450. 3.80GHz is pretty much a given. The rest is just you.

Edit:
But if you are on a tight budget, you can go for a Q6600, get a good motherboard, and settle with 3.2GHz or so, I guess. In my mindset, it's like this:

Q6600 + Mobo + water cooling (for 3.6GHz) = something around $450
Q9450 + Mobo + normal air cooling = something around $500

It's just a matter of fact. High-end performance comes at a high price.

[kenmasters1983]

i would skip quads for atleast another 2 years if it was me..

i would go for an e8400 its cheaper and way faster than a q6600 and a q9300..according to pcsx2 an crysis anyway..hmm

[Cheesus]

@kenmasters
No **** its faster at pcsx2... It doesn't use 4 cores!
(Guys, seriously, PCSX2 is really great and all, but it isn't the ONLY thing that people use their computers for. Infact, outside this forum, not that very many people use it!)
Also, Crysis isn't well optimized for 4 cores, although the 4 cores should theoretically give off more fps then the dual core... Sadly, this is pretty useless since Crysis is heavily GPU dependant.

In reality, a dual core will serve you fine for general use... But the difference between a Quad and a Dual is pretty noticeable. I mean I was at my friends place, and he happens to have a Q6600 (@stock), and the difference in performance was pretty noticeable compared to my E6600 @3.15... Especially when running more then 3 things at the same time. Ex. Media player, web browsing, photoshop, burning a disk... All of which I do on a daily basis.


@MrPink
Go for the Q9450. Seriously.
RAP pretty much summed it up for you.

[runawayprisoner]

If you just need something to handle PCSX2, get E7200 or E7300. Highly recommended. If you do something other than PCSX2 and gaming, maybe a quad will be more helpful than you think it would be.

[tuanming]

Okay, first name one thing that a quadcore couldn't do what a dual core could do (beside higher overclocking). Without even thinking I'd go with the 45nm quadcore anyday!

[Memulator91k]

Uhmmm I give you a good reason it's Cheaper! So gives a better bang for the buck.
It's got a higher Clock speed at stock, It's faster while playing games.
Less Heat etc.

[TBx]

If you can hold on until later this year you'll be able to get better deals on some higher end chips (looks at q9550 and e7300)

They're really stretching out the lifespan of the q6600

[kenmasters1983]

where did you get that from...it sounds almost to good to be true..the e8600 looks nice..i might pickup an q9400 in the coming year..just to say i have a quad-core computer..bwhahaa

[tuanming]

Well, anyone who's considering quad core then price shouldn't be the main concern.

[TBx]

HKEPC: Intel's Q3 Pricelist - XtremeSystems Forums

Supposedly Q3 = July

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by tuanming

Okay, first name one thing that a quadcore couldn't do what a dual core could do (beside higher overclocking). Without even thinking I'd go with the 45nm quadcore anyday!

Uhhh... this?



Not the higher overclock, but more likely... the ease of overclocking. Name one quad-core processor at twice the price of this CPU that can do this on the same motherboard.

[TBx]

Damn you RAP, this makes me really want to get an e7200, but I must wait til July for the e7300 to dethrone you with the x10 multiplier!

[runawayprisoner]

I can lose with 200MHz or so. It doesn't hurt much or at all, anyway. Besides, 3.80GHz on an HTPC board with only the option to raise FSB and CPU voltage is just too crazy. I think this is as "extreme" as this board can get. lol And by the way, the non-HDMI version of this board goes for like $50, so imagine you can get this much for less than $200 for both the CPU and motherboard. I don't think "budget" can go any lower. And that's definitely better than a quad-core, which goes for at least as much for both the CPU and motherboard (assuming you can get very lucky on eBay) but might not be able to do half as well.

[tuanming]

Hey runawayprisoner, guess you didn't read my post carefully. In any case, I don't think I'd need to link a picture of a quadcore running at 3.8Ghz or higher cause there's lots of screenshot available on the web. Also, that's a crappy motherboard if you going run a quadcore with that $hitty board with cheap ass components. I thought you knew better than that... If you have something you wanna prove that this board has potential then show me a ss of this motherboard running over 500 fsb "stable".

[runawayprisoner]

I didn't say that the board had potential, nor that the chip could clock to 3.80GHz to be good. I'm saying that for less than $200 total for both the CPU and the motherboard brand new (on Newegg), you can get that much. Now tell me if $400 in total for a 45nm quad and a motherboard will guarantee you that kind of overclock? Sure anyone who wants a quad-core system should not care about cost... but when the cost is over twice that of a similar dual-core system, it's time to reconsider. Money doesn't grow on tree. And I'm saying this even after I've gotten two 45nm quads to 4.00GHz.

[TBx]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

And I'm saying this even after I've gotten two 45nm quads to 4.00GHz.

For a friend...?

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by TBx

For a friend...?

For the world. I proved the ASUS P5E-VM HDMI to be the best board for 45nm quads... or at least for Q9450. But that was purely accidental.

[skoreanime]

Probably himself . He's our resident CPU stress tester.

Anyways, if you're someone who usually has multiple things running and have more then 1 screen up and running, going from a dual to a quad CPU will be like night and day. I went from a 3.3Ghz Core 2 Duo to my current rig and I can easily say the overall system performance was very noticeable.

My 2 bits.