Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 vs q9400

[roshan45]

Hi,


As mentioned in the title, I would like your opinion on these processors, my use is the game (trackmania only) and I wish there is no lag in multiple spots. I also hold that the O / C (I board took the E8500 because it seems that tien mieu and higher O / C the E8400). Because although the Q9600 is more powerful, not worth what you offered regarding the Q6600 with the price. so guy's what do you say about Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and q9400 ??

[Seraphim]

The advantage is that the E8500 has a coeff of 9.5 but it is also much more expensive. By cons if you want to do true multi-spots "for example, play a game, you ripe for a dvd movie to divx, you encode another movie, in short, that you use much software at the same time, You need a qc, otherwise if you never use more than 2 programs at the same time, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 is sufficient.

[Mac-Imagery]

A quad at 3.2 Ghz is more efficient in all areas that E8500. It is often said to be wrong and that dual core perform better in games than the quads, it's wrong. At equal frequency, a dual and a quad will perfs in the same game, except those that take advantage of quad-core it begins to have a few and the trend will continue inexorably, where the quad will be more effective.

The trick is that dual core is lower in frequency equal so people tend to say they are better to play. In a logical value, but it is still true for some time yet I think. So if you feel the OC a Q6600 is an excellent choice.

[Hoobastank]

If you have good cooling system for CPU overclock forget a Core2 Quad, or at least the Q6600. If you can not overclock obviously you will outperform the higher frequency, in addition to the 45nm Intel Core2 architecture MHz are more efficient per MHz than 65nm. What is the use of PC? If you play I think the Q9400 will perform better, after all, although it has 1MB less cache on each core, is more frequent and better communication between cores (1333MHz FSB).

[roshan45]

If only playing games, and burn dvd. then ???? is better or more l2 cache fsb?? (qe stamos clear the Q9550 much better) or for multitasking, either watch a movie, recording, Internet standalone ....? I guess the Q9400 is better, but again, in addition to 45nm ??? just does not convince me much ...

[Hoobastank]

I'll give you another example, Q6600 Vs Q8200 (4MB cache) and pay the same, being that the Q8200 is still slower (2.33GHz). The Q9400 is undoubtedly higher, also if you overclock yours is not assumed that is better than you have right now have more often. Improvements in games are on the frequency, 6MB cache as it remains small quantities, and also have better communication between cores (1333MHz FSB).