Which 45nm Intel CPU?

[Wills]

Hello,

Im in the market for a new CPU anytime soon, (probably be buying in a month, possibly less)
Currently have an E4300@stock speeds,

So i was thinking C2D E8400 or C2Q Q9300.
Originally it was between the Q9300 and the E8500, but ive heard that the 8400 is a great overclocker and much better value of money. Ill probly be buying the Noctua NH-U12P, if it will fit in my Akasa zen case (after i remove the side duct) with the intent to possibly overclocking. My Pc is mainly used for gaming, and my mobo is a P5B-Plus Vista edition (with the latest BIOS), and I have 3 gigs of DDR2 667mhz Corsair xms (I need some faster stuff sometime I know , how much will my mem limit my O/C capabilities).

Obviously the Q9300 has more cores, but most apps cant utilise all these efficiently so ive heard, so the higher clocked E85000/8400 is the better bet. However i read somewhere that Flight Sim X makes good use of all the cores, and this is a game im very interested in getting running well (on my BFG 8800GTs OC2 640mb), so what do you guys think the performace would be like with both CPU's.

Comments and suggestions welcome
Never really O/Ced successfully before, due to bad cooling i believe, so interested in getting a nice fast CPU and a really decent (but not horendously expensive CPU cooler (was originally thinking about the Freezer 7 Pro, but was told the Noctua would be much much better, and worth every penny by a mate who has built a system with one in)) and following the Core 2 overclocking guide on the forums

Thanks all,

Wills

[PeterStoba]

9300 is a 'bad' overclockers, due to its half multi, also less cache than a Q6600 and slightly higher clock speed. Get a q6600 and clock to around 2.8-3 or an e8400, either will do find in FSX tbh

[FifthFreedom]

Yup, get a Q6600.

It can be easily clocked to 3.0Ghz and that is fast enough for any current games TBH.

Also, it means any RAR work or encoding/decoding is much faster and you can do things while its working.

Anyone who buys dual cores now is missing something in my view as the extra cores are far more worthwhile than a %20 speed increase. Especially as new apps are only going to use multi cores even more than they do now.

A Q6600 is the wau to go. (Or a Q9450 if you have the extra cash as you can OC to 3.4 mostly without issue)

[Lourdes]

I'll third a Q6600, best bang for buck CPU going. Four cores, good OC and low price.

[Bios]

in a gaming environment if you want quad-core & some real kick ass gaming performance, I would recommend going for one of Intel’s higher-end quad-core models with a full 12 MB of cache, like the Q9450 and up (45nm).

However, if its price/performance ratio you are looking for than the Q6600 is the number one choice.

[Lourdes]

in a gaming environment if you want quad-core & some real kick ass gaming performance, I would recommend going for one of Intel’s higher-end quad-core models with a full 12 MB of cache, like the Q9450 and up (45nm).

However, if its price/performance ratio you are looking for than the Q6600 is the number one choice.

More cache makes very little difference to gaming, often less than 1-2% more FPS. In addition games are GPU limited more than CPU limited so you really get no advantage from a faster CPU except at low resolutions - http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...ore-processors .

[Blitzen]

The older chipset motherboards, although can be flashed to take the 45nm CPU's, dont like them alot and are pretty unstable.

Upgrade your motherboard first fella.

[kalniel]

9300 is a 'bad' overclockers, due to its half multi, also less cache than a Q6600 and slightly higher clock speed. Get a q6600 and clock to around 2.8-3 or an e8400, either will do find in FSX tbh

Yup, get a Q6600.

I'll third a Q6600,

Wasn't he asking about 45nm chips?

[Hottentot]

As Blitzen said the P965 chipset on the P5B more than likely won't run a 45nm CPU so its new mobo time or a Q6600. I would go for the Q6600 to extend the life of the system myself.

[Blitzen]

As Blitzen said the P965 chipset on the P5B more than likely won't run a 45nm CPU so its new mobo time or a Q6600. I would go for the Q6600 to extend the life of the system myself.

It will run it..........it will just run it badly.
Most of the 965's have had a bios update to take them but the companies havent bothered to go overboard.
These bios updates have left them running with very poor stability and all sorts of incorrect heat reading issues. I tried it with a 975x and it was shocking.

The 965's are really knocking on now so i doubt any more updates will come through.

[Bios]

More cache makes very little difference to gaming, often less than 1-2% more FPS. In addition games are GPU limited more than CPU limited so you really get no advantage from a faster CPU except at low resolutions - http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...ore-processors .

While i agree on your points but the Q9450 is without a doubt a much cooler and a faster CPU and is on par with the E8500. If your gamer who likes to run Xfire,Teamspeak and even some of your own music in the background while you game i would either go with the e8500 (45nm) or Q9450 (45nm) but I know which one i would go for. It all depends on what u do on your PC:

- If you like to multi-task, video encode etc etc = Q9450
- If you just want a fast gaming desktop = E8500

[Wills]

I really cant believe its tomr for a new motherboard, this one is just 13 months old, and I spent £100+ on it, with the garantee that it would be able to happily run the newer 45nm chips: http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/

And isnt the Q6600 less efficient/slower because of its older manufacturering process....?

[PeterStoba]

Nope, just runs a bit hotter, but with an aftermarket cooler and good airflow it is ok

[Wills]

Thats odd.
However ill do some more research but I think the 8400 is the way to go for me, trying it on my current motherboard as Im not really in a situation where I can afford another decent new one.

[Agent]

It will run it..........it will just run it badly.
Most of the 965's have had a bios update to take them but the companies havent bothered to go overboard.
These bios updates have left them running with very poor stability and all sorts of incorrect heat reading issues. I tried it with a 975x and it was shocking.

The 965's are really knocking on now so i doubt any more updates will come through.

Have you tried it on the Abit AB9 QuadGT?

There are some threads over at the Abit official forums where the boards are not only stable, but have some decent overclocks too.
I've not tried it myself yet, but you can have a read here for example. I'm sure there are more threads on there but you'll have to have a search for them.

I may upgrade to a quad soon, but will probably jump directly to 45nm unless I can find a good priced Q6600. My rig is watercooled so that should help a bit. Don't really want to upgrade the mobo again just yet, this one has been solid

Won't argue on the P5B front though - I've never had good experiences with ASUS boards

[Blitzen]

Have you tried it on the Abit AB9 QuadGT?

There are some threads over at the Abit official forums where the boards are not only stable, but have some decent overclocks too.
I've not tried it myself yet, but you can have a read here for example. I'm sure there are more threads on there but you'll have to have a search for them.

I may upgrade to a quad soon, but will probably jump directly to 45nm unless I can find a good priced Q6600. My rig is watercooled so that should help a bit. Don't really want to upgrade the mobo again just yet, this one has been solid

Won't argue on the P5B front though - I've never had good experiences with ASUS boards

The AB9 seems like one of the very few that runs them.
I have tried a 45nm with a P5B but i did try a Q6600 with one and it was very unstable. I fugure if they cant get it right for 65nm then the chances are limited even further with a 45nm.
They just werent designed to take them