ZoroLives Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 My post is regarding the following two chips and specs: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Quad-Core Processor - $194.99Brand IntelProcessors Type DesktopSeries Core 2 QuadModel BX80562Q6600CPU Socket TypeCPU Socket Type LGA 775Tech SpecCore KentsfieldMulti-Core Quad-CoreName Core 2 Quad Q6600Operating Frequency 2.4GHzFSB 1066MHzL1 Cache 128KB+128KBL2 Cache 2 x 4MBManufacturing Tech 65 nm64 bit Support YesHyper-Threading Support NoVirtualization Technology Support YesMultimedia Instruction MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3,SSSE3, EM64TVoltage 0.85V – 1.5V Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5GHz 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor - $189.99Brand IntelSeries Core 2 QuadModel BX80580Q8300CPU Socket TypeCPU Socket Type LGA 775Tech SpecMulti-Core Quad-CoreName Core 2 Quad Q8300Operating Frequency 2.5GHzFSB 1333MHzL2 Cache 4MBManufacturing Tech 45 nmVoltage 0.85V – 1.3625VThermal Power 95W Question. Chip #1 is very popular and I am just about ready to get it for my first build. Double checking and rechecking it seems that there is a slightly faster chip, choice #2, that is just a bit cheaper. I am going to go with the recommendations as this is all very new to me. That would mean AFAIK, that the Q6600 would be the best choice in this category. The category being a low cost quad with lots of stable head room to OC. The main differences that I can see are that, the Q6600 has a slower FSB, a level one cache a 65 nm process and a slightly higher voltage range (is this what makes it a good OC candidate?) The Q8300 has the faster FSB, no level one cache, and a 45nm process. I am mainly interested in the Q6600 as many have suggested before me, because it gives good bang for the buck. Meaning I am thinking it would easily and reliably OC at 3.0 long term. For the Q8300 to be of equal or greater value it would need to OC to 3.0 just as well, or at least just as high and remain stable long term. Any thoughts on these two candidates would be most appreciated. I intend to set them on a GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard ADDED: I am just noticing that the Q6600 offers no hyperthreadding support. This is curious to me as I was thinking it did do that. OR perhaps I am not understanding the term correctly? I use Bibble Pro. IT is a photography app that does use all cores - which I assume means multithreadding, to process raw images. THe Q8300 (or Q9300) does not mention hyperthreadding at all. Can anyone also clarify this for me? It looks like I would have to go all the way to an Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor before I got hyperthreadding support. I am thinking I must be misunderstanding the meaning of this term??? Thanks, trying to ask informed question here, noob stuff aside. ADDED MORE: Reading the following link gives me a better idea. http://www.behardware.com/articles/739-3/q...-the-q6600.html I would still appreciate knowledgeable persons comments though. Over-clocking is not only a function of the multiplier but also the FSB limits. Therefore the Q6600 is still the champ, albeit an ageing one. Yet the Q8300 can hit what is my goal of about 3.4GHz with no sweat. I Said 3.0GHz for the Q6600 but it apparently can go to 3.6GHz. Given either chip seems to deliver stability at 3.2 to 3.4, I wouild look more at the Q8300 now. Especially as it is just a little less than the Q6600 now. Again, I would very much appreciate some smarter folks on this matter to comment than I. Right, wrong or almost there, please add thoughts. And thanks. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/152058-two-chips-q6600-or-q8300/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Some more facts: The Q9300 has SSE4 supports. The Q9300 DOESN'T have Intel® Virtualization Technology. Hyperthreading is not a huge deal and it's benefits for some applications is less than dramatic. (Hence why Intel stopped using it for some time.) (You can look it up on wikipedia for more details.) If you are going to overclock, the Q6600 is probably a safer pick, just because its been out longer and has been well tested and OC'd. If you plan to run Parallels or VMware Fusion, go with the Q6600 for sure hands down. The Q6600 is a pretty powerful chip and although the faster FSB of the Q9300 might create a faster CPU (by the numbers), the practical differences are likely to be even less significant. (My Q6600 was under utilized on pretty much all tasks except for video encoding.) Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/152058-two-chips-q6600-or-q8300/#findComment-1074103 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoroLives Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 Some more facts: The Q9300 has SSE4 supports. The Q9300 DOESN'T have Intel® Virtualization Technology. Hyperthreading is not a huge deal and it's benefits for some applications is less than dramatic. (Hence why Intel stopped using it for some time.) (You can look it up on wikipedia for more details.) If you are going to overclock, the Q6600 is probably a safer pick, just because its been out longer and has been well tested and OC'd. If you plan to run Parallels or VMware Fusion, go with the Q6600 for sure hands down. The Q6600 is a pretty powerful chip and although the faster FSB of the Q9300 might create a faster CPU (by the numbers), the practical differences are likely to be even less significant. (My Q6600 was under utilized on pretty much all tasks except for video encoding.) Thanks for the input - sorry I was still adding on to my post as you answered. the Q6600 does seem very well trusted in this community and after all I am looking to follow a worn path so, I will lean toward what works more stably. (otherwise I would go with the i7) But, with that said, there should not be any problems going with either chip in the world of Hackingtoshes, should there? Could it be that the Q6600 is more "tested in" with these HM builds and the Q8300 is less known and there fore more unsafe (unreliable)? OR is it merely a matter of personal preference? I have nothing against the Q6600 and if it is better, or at least more trustable, then by all means I will go with it. What is it about Parallels that makes the Q6600 better? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/152058-two-chips-q6600-or-q8300/#findComment-1074118 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I can't speak for the Q8300. I've just read many many comments asking the same question as you and the answer is overwelmingly to go with the Q6600. What is it about Parallels that makes the Q6600 better? The Q6600 has hardware support for virtualization which Parallels can take advantage of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware-assi..._virtualization Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/152058-two-chips-q6600-or-q8300/#findComment-1074159 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoroLives Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 I can't speak for the Q8300. I've just read many many comments asking the same question as you and the answer is overwelmingly to go with the Q6600. The Q6600 has hardware support for virtualization which Parallels can take advantage of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware-assi..._virtualization Thanks. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/152058-two-chips-q6600-or-q8300/#findComment-1074170 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts