im buying a new mobo but im undecided on the processor

[deathanarchist2]

So im buying a new mobo but im undecided on the processor

im buying the asus maximus

and idont know if i want the

c2q q6600

or the

c2q q9300 (45mm)

any suggestions pros? cons?

[Purple Puppy]

The Q6600 has more processor cache. I've heard that lots of people like overclocking the Q6600.

 

Whereas, the Q9300 runs cooler (as it is 45nm), but has less processor cache. It also has a lower clock multiplier as a result of its higher FSB, 1333MHz.

[deathanarchist2]

im still undecided any hints?

[Spol]

If you want a cool and quiet system go for Yorkfield. If you are planning to do a major OC, or want to save your money then get the Q6600. Last week I was on the same boat as you are now, I wanted a 45nm processor and the extra cache, so I got the X3350, if money is not an issue you could go for that same CPU that I got or the core 2 version of it Q9450, otherwise Q6600 is perfectly fine for normal use if you have an aftermarket heatsink.

[Synaesthesia]

Q9300 is my choice -> faster, runs cooler.

[Spol]

Q9300 is my choice -> faster, runs cooler.

 

True, if he wants energy efficiency but the extra cache doesn't benefit the applications he runs then Q9300 is the perfect choice.

[deathanarchist2]

final cut? the cache would help for it huh?

[Spol]

I'm not really sure about video editing, I do audio production and having more cache makes noticeable difference when playing back many tracks and they all have to be sync'ed, but it doesn't make difference when rendering the project offline. Like I said before, if money is not an issue go for the X3350 or Q9450, at the end it's a workstation you are trying to built so you should see some benefits with that extra cache, but I can't direct you to a web page with benchmarks so you could make a better decision, sorry.

[flamesrock]

The 9300 has sse4 which could help with media processing.

 

Personally, I'd go with the q6600

[hackeron]

Q9300 is my choice -> faster, runs cooler.

 

Right except it doesn't run on hackintosh. Well, it does but there is a slow clock problem that causes audio distortion, usb jitter and an array of other clock related problems making the system very unpleasant to use.

 

I deeply regret upgrading to a Q9300 to use with hackintosh

[Synaesthesia]

That sucks

[vbetts]

The q6600, nice and cheap for a quad core, and if you find a G0 model, overclocks like hell.

[hackeron]

Found the solution to the Q9300 problem, Q9300 working as expected now! - details here: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=112531

[Synaesthesia]

The Q6600 and Q9300 are both damn fine chips and totally worth the $$$

[hackeron]

The Q6600 and Q9300 are both damn fine chips and totally worth the $$

 

Yes, but Q6600 runs on vanilla leopard with minimal modifications, Q9300 requires a custom kernel. If building the system again I would've gotten Q6600.

[deathanarchist2]

wait what did you say! the q9300 requires a patched kernel?

[Poco]

I would get the Q6600.

iPoco

[deathanarchist2]

will the q9450 work better?

[awesomo]

it'll be faster but ipoco is right q6600 is very solid and reasonably priced. q9450 probably run a little cooler too

[hackeron]

wait what did you say! the q9300 requires a patched kernel?

 

Yes, the Q9300 requires patching, so forget running vanilla with it - go with the Q6600 if you want vanilla.

[deathanarchist2]

it thought it worked without it just not well and will th q9450 need a patched kernel too?

[hackeron]

it thought it worked without it just not well and will th q9450 need a patched kernel too?

 

It's likely

 

The Q9300 works without patching, but you get distorted audio, slow clock, slow rtc, vlc is unusable, everything that requires correct time doesn't work as expected (which is pretty much everything).