Intel Q9400 or Q6600

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by Carel, Apr 18, 2012.

  1. Carel

    Carel MDL Member

    Oct 11, 2009
    119
    3
    10
    I have to choose between two processors, but don't know which one to choose. I know these processors are old, but I really are not sure which one to keep. Either my Intel Q6600 (Kentsfield) or the Q9400 (Yorkfield).

    The Q6600 is an overclocking monster, although the Q9400 overclocks to the same level. The Q6600 has way more transistors on the die than the Q9400, but that wouldn't make a big difference since they perform very much the same in any benchmark.

    I am thinking of keeping the Q9400 since it is a 45nm processor, runs cooler, uses less power, has SSE4.1 instruction set and does not overclock too bad. My Q6600 could overclock up to 50% and this one slightly less, but it has a higher core speed anyway (not much). They perform about exactly the same in the benchmarks (when overclocked to their limits).

    Any one with experience in both these processors can maybe give me a hint?
     
  2. QuantumBug

    QuantumBug MDL Developer

    Mar 7, 2012
    1,488
    1,327
    60
    Keep the Q6600, I've owned both processors before and my advice is the Q6600 was better and found that it ran cooler than the Q9400, but I did have a different setup each time; the Q9400 was cooled with an Akasa Venom Voodoo dual fan push and pull and the Q6600 was cooled by Corsair Hydro H60. I always got better performance on Crysis with the Q6600, but found desktop applications took advantage of the Q9400 over the Q6600.

    Out of interest why are you keeping your old Processor?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Carel

    Carel MDL Member

    Oct 11, 2009
    119
    3
    10
    The Q6600 is my own processor. The Q9400 is a processor of a friend which he said I can have for $80 (I do believe he thought I had an older processor even though I didn't). Anyhow, I won't have trouble selling the Q6600 though. The Q9400 reports much higher temperatures but I did found that the temperature monitor on some CPUs are not as accurate as on others. The physical temperature of the Q9400 is way lower than that of the Q6600 even though it reports the opposite. When you take readings using a thermometer you can see that the Q9400 is actually in reality cooler by 15 degrees celcius. Even overclocked and under load, it still runs cooler. The other thing is that I have a CRAP motherboard. Actually the motherboard is ok, but the BIOS is up to *****.

    When I overclock the Q6600 in my MSI P35 Platinum (exactly the same as P35 Neo2FR) - I cannot put the system to S3 sleep mode as it will not wake again. With the Q9400, I can and it does wake properly.
    I have not yet tested the graphics performance of the Q9400, but it does get a higher score in 3D Mark Vantage (the score is 13300 vs 12000 of the Q6600). In 3d Mark 06 the Q6600 beats it up nicely. I think I have to run some more tests before I decide, but I am also considering it to keep my Q6600 for several reasons. The fact that my mobo does not want to enter S3 sleep with the Q6600 is caused by the stupidity of the BIOS engineers who designed it and it is VERY annoying.

    I think I'll run some more tests and then I'll make my final decission. I just don't know what applications to rn benchmarks on...
    SuperPI, 3Dmark06, 3Dmark Vantage, Intel Burn Test (Lindata). This I think should give me an idea. For now - its just better to keep the Q6600 (except if this was a Q9450 or QX series CPU). It's just simple: It's no upgrade...