Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
158 of 161 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
For the money, this is the ONLY option!, January 4, 2008
I did not purchase my G0 Q6600 from Amazon. Back in late October, 2007 the G0's were scarce, so I went with a vendor who guaranteed that I would get one (versus the distinct possibility of getting the older "B3" version of the processor with most other vendors, including Amazon).
For the uninitiated, the usefulness of a quad-core CPU versus the more ubiquitous (and less expensive) dual-core version is dubious for most desktop users. Most applications are not multi-threaded and therefore are not able to make use of the extra CPU cores packed onto the Q6600. Your operating system (Windows, Apple OSX, Linux, etc) can, to some extent, "balance" (sometimes) different tasks between cores, in which case a multi-core CPU can yield noticeable advantages.
However, many software developers are adding "multi-thread" capability to future versions of their applications to take advantage of the new processors. Therefore, at this moment, a quad-core CPU is the best bet for "future-proofing" your computer (if there is such a thing), and Intel is the leader of the pack -- by a wide margin (substantiated by every review on the planet).
Why the Q6600?
For starters, the price/performance ratio of the Q6600 is nothing short of remarkable. This processor has single-handedly given the average desktop user high-end, workstation-caliber performance for a price that is simply unimaginable. The Q6600's dual-core sibling, the E6600, is only a few dollars less expensive. The Q6600 is essentially TWO Intel E6600 processors, for only a few dollars more. It's a no-brainer, especially since the Q6600 will run on most of the same motherboards that support the E6600.
Second, the Q6600 (especially the newer G0 model) can be easily overclocked to a speed that rivals or exceeds Intel's latest flagship $1000+ quad-core "Extreme" processors (as-of this writing). With just 60 seconds in the motherboard BIOS, my Q6600 is running at 3.2GHz, air-cooled (ie: heatsink and fan), at all stock voltages and RAM FSB (800MHz). Only the CPU is actually overclocked (using a GA-P35-DSR3 motherboard) again, at stock Vcore (1.3v). It is rock-solid stable (Prime95 "Torture Test" for 24 hours) and the four cores never exceed 50C (SpeedFan, corrected) under load and run at 20-30C idle. I have run it at a fully-stable 3.6GHz, but prefer the cooler temps that 3.2GHz operates at. I am reasonably certain that I could get to 4GHz if I wanted to move to water cooling, though I haven't experienced any lust for more power with the current setup (a first in my computing life).
I run 8GB (4x2GB) of Patriot Extreme Performance DDR2-800 RAM (at stock Bus and VLU) and an EVGA 8800GTX-OC GPU and this is the fastest desktop computer I have ever used (Windows Vista Ultimate x64).
I am NOT a gamer. I've never played a game on this computer. I do use Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, InDesign CS3, Illustrator CS3, Dreamweaver, Premiere Pro CS3, AfterEffects CS3, and a number of other CPU-intensive (and multi-threaded) applications. I can process PARs, rip RARs, convert x264 HD video, download NNTP, and write this review all at the same time, all without ANY noticeable slow-down or system "sluggishness." This processor has single-handedly ushered in a new era of personal computing productivity I never would have believed possible.
Behold, the power of four cores!
|
|
|
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Nice, but wait, June 27, 2007
On July 22, this product will take a significant price drop, but if you can't wait, it is an awesome Processor.
|
|
|
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
45nm Quad: Not a good investment, yet, January 28, 2008
I've seen way too many people being convinced about Yorkfields by the paper. I, however, oppose going to 45nm at all, yet.
Price vs. Specs
Think about it, what do you get from and for how much can you get a Q6600 these days? A Q6600 is about $270-$280 on average and it's almost certain that the B3 stock has been flushed so you can be safe to assume that it's a G0. It does come with a 1066MHz FSB and most importantly, a 9x multiplier.
Now looking at the 45nm version we can throw out the Q9300 as it has less L2 cache (only 6MB) and a 7x multiplier. The only comparable quad would be a Q9450 it seems, with 12MB L2 cache and 1333MHz FSB. Given that Q6600 wasn't exactly priced at what the early chart said ($266) because then you'd have to buy so many of them, it's pretty safe to assume a Q9450 would be around $350 when it surfaces.
We've seen so many 45nm quads (or was it merely a few?) getting 4GHz on air. That all sounds good, don't you think?
Overclocking
I doubt it can be as good. Why would an overclocker care for 1066MHz vs 1333MHz FSB first of all? As you overclock that levels out. At 3.6GHz (450x8) both the Q6600 and Q9450 would be on 1800MHz anyway.
Now look at the multiplier. Apparently there is no way to get 9x multiplier on a 45nm quad unless you go all out and buy a QX9650 or QX9770 which most of us won't. Even with a $500+ Q9550 you would still be getting a 8.5x multiplier.
Of course then you would think: "Who cares? They still overclock better." No, they won't overclock better. Earlier, CD posted about how Wolfdales aren't hitting the magical 4GHz, and both Wolfdale and Yorkfield are on the C0 stepping, so why would anyone think the quad would overclock better than the dual if they're on the same core stepping? Nevermind that, add in the 8x multiplier. Are you certain your motherboard can achieve 500FSB on a quad? After all that's what it takes to hit 4GHz. With a 9x multiplier you'd only need 445FSB.
It's pretty obvious those 4GHz on air chips were cherry picked.
But there's one more reason: voltage. You have to realize that if you use what you think is the max safe 24/7 voltage on a 65nm on a 45nm, you can potentially damage the chip. It's know for a long time that 45nm makes these chips much more sensitive to higher voltages. So therefore, you might be limited even more on overclocking if you want it to live.
Why?
Why buy a 45nm quad now? SSE4 isn't gonna be implemented in major, everyday applications anytime soon, and the extra 4MB L2 would make a minimal, unnoticeable performance difference in real world applications. Certainly you wouldn't enjoy overclocking it as much either.
If anything, don't even wait for the next core revision, wait for the marriage of a higher multiplier and better core revision. By then, wouldn't we be close enough to Nehalem to not waste more money on a shrinked version of what we already have?
For now, the Q6600 is the best quad overall.
Wolfdale vs Yorkfield vs Kentsfield
This part should make it very clear why you shouldn't get a Yorkfield.
Since the only so-called "worthy" 45nm quad is the Q9450 due to it being the lowest priced 45nm quad with 12MB L2 cache, we'll use that to represent the Yorkfield. Both the E8200 and E8400 will represent Wolfdale, and Q6600 will represent Kentsfield.
Let's start with the E8400. There's no doubt that this is the best dual core release since the early good batches of the E6600. With a 9x multiplier and 45nm shrink, it's a sure win if you're in the market of getting a dual core, especially with the not low, but reasonable price tag of roughly $220. It's actually that 4GHz 45nm chip everyone's been waiting for.
But what about that E8200? Not so good it seems. On average, it's not hitting that 4GHz that you would sell your kidney for. Yes......blame the 8x multiplier. Now that you need 500FSB instead of 445FSB, things can be quite different. Now you're gonna need more voltage, a really good motherboard, and better cooling.
Oh snap, here comes that Q9450, or should I say dual E8200? Given that quads don't overclock as well as their dual core equivalents according to history, I really don't expect that Q9450 to do better. I'm sure that your motherboard won't clock as high either with 2 more cores onboard. Now I really wonder, why would anyone want all this trouble for a whole $100 more than the Q6600?
Q6600 has a 9x multiplier and if anything, it's got a better chance of clocking higher. And you can spend that extra $100 on a kickass cooler, so why not? Remember the days before the E6750 G0 was in your shopping cart? You probably saw a lot of 4GHz results before buying one but you probably never got there. Thanks to the 8x multiplier, not much people were happy with the E6400, E6420, E6750, E8200, and now, most likely, the Q9450.
Does the Q9450 really worth its price then? Your money, your choice. I've given more than enough advice for you to decide. Whether you get one or not, it's your money. Oh by the way, reselling isn't always an easy thing.
I have mines folding 24/7 at 3.712GHz 1.5V on air and I love it!
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
