Q6600 or wait for Q9450?

[moogle]

in real honest is there any real noticable difference from a quad core at 3ghz then it is when its at 3.6ghz?

yes,
cpu-z shows 3600 instead of 3000. apart from that you wont notice much unless you do stuff like folding or rendering or something that takes reallly long. over time the seconds you save build up and such and it therefore saves you a significant amount of time.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

so if somthing takes a minute to render on a 3ghz cpu, a 3.6ghz makes it take mayble 50 seconds?

[Andydigital]

Now come on get it right, it would be 48 seconds

[j.o.s.h.1408]

that was an estimate

[Andydigital]

Now come on get it right, it would be 48 seconds

That was a joke

[j.o.s.h.1408]

That was a joke

nice one anyways i bet that a q9450 at 3ghz performs identical to a q6600 clocked at 3.6

[moogle]

nice one anyways i bet that a q9450 at 3ghz performs identical to a q6600 clocked at 3.6

which is why we wait for it to be reviewed first

[Webby]

nice one anyways i bet that a q9450 at 3ghz performs identical to a q6600 clocked at 3.6

Does a E8400 out perform a E6850 at stock? And if so by how much? Just checked a couple of reviews and it suggests that over their test suite they saw a 6% increase in performance, I would suggest that a Q6600 at 3.6GHz will enjoy a larger than 6% increase over a Q6600 at 3GHz and so would expect your speculation to be wrong. I may of course be proved wrong we will have to wait and see.

[s_kinton]

nice one anyways i bet that a q9450 at 3ghz performs identical to a q6600 clocked at 3.6

Doesnt look like thats the case, its not that big a margin. Theres a good thread over at xs comparing speeds betwen the Q6600 and Q9450. Have a read:

Yorkfield Q9450 vs Kentsfield Q6600 at 3.6Ghz - XtremeSystems Forums

"Comparing the two 32M times, you get 6.66% performance improvement at same clockspeed (similar to the 6.5% the xbit lab article quoted as average performance gain). 6.66% at 3600 is ~240 mhz, so theoretically a 3.84 Q6600 should equal a 3.6 QX9450, but would be nice to see tested. (1M superpi showed 8.6% improvement, but thats more prone to variability error)
"

[j.o.s.h.1408]

wow if its only 6% there is no point paying nearly £100 on a q9450. i read somwhere that it was meant to be at least 20% faster. 6% is not worth the extra money over a q6600

[Blitzen]

Glad i went Q6600 for half of the price of a Q9450 now then

[j.o.s.h.1408]

the q6600 will go down in price more when this cpu comes out i believe. are alll penthyn a waste then?

[moogle]

the q6600 will go down in price more when this cpu comes out i believe. are alll penthyn a waste then?

no not for new buyers I suppose. For us probably. But if the penryns werent there the first gen quads wouldn't decrease in price as quick

[Fraz]

are alll penthyn a waste then?

You from Wales?...

[this_is_gav]

so if somthing takes a minute to render on a 3ghz cpu, a 3.6ghz makes it take mayble 50 seconds?

How about a video that takes 7hrs to render? You'd notice a hell of a difference at 3.6GHz... real world example.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

How about a video that takes 7hrs to render? You'd notice a hell of a difference at 3.6GHz... real world example.

about 5 hours to render? if all is true then the q9450 will flop big time period. there are not many dumb people who would spend nearly double on 6% increase on a q6600