# q9300 vs q6700



## glennxx1

the 9300 is a quad 2.5 6 mb cache, and the 6700 is a quad 2.6 8 mb cache, which would be better for gaming and why?


----------



## Respital

glennxx1 said:


> the 9300 is a quad 2.5 6 mb cache, and the 6700 is a quad 2.6 8 mb cache, which would be better for gaming and why?



The Q6700 would be the better chose for gaming.
Because of it's slightly higher clock speed and 2Mb more cache.

The Q9300 would be a slightly worse chose for gaming.
Because it has a little less cache then the Q6700.
But this processor does have a few advantages over the Q6700.
Because of it's 45nm manufacturing technology compared to the 65nm of the Q6700 it will run cooler under the same amount of load. And i'm guessing (don't quote me on this) it's also better because it has a higher amount of transistors. 


Hope this helps.


----------



## Quick69GTO

The June 2008 issue of Maximum PC has an article on just this subject.
The 9300 came out on top.

Oops, sorry. It was the Q6600 vs. the 9300.


----------



## Respital

Quick69GTO said:


> The June 2008 issue of Maximum PC has an article on just this subject.
> The 9300 came out on top.
> 
> Oops, sorry. It was the Q6600 vs. the 9300.



Okay unless you would like to type off something or give us a link to that article that is spam because your just advertising a magazine, not actually telling the us pros and cons of these processors.


----------



## vonfeldt7

Respital said:


> Okay unless you would like to type off something or give us a link to that article that is spam because your just advertising a magazine, not actually telling the us pros and cons of these processors.



Why so harsh? He's correct...the Q9300 does perform slightly better than the Q6600. (From what I've seen/others have told me).

He obviously wasn't trying to advertise for Maximum PC...he's providing a source, that's all. Take it easy...


----------



## SirKenin

If you're gaming, you don't want a quad core anyways, you want an E8400.  Quads are a bit of a waste at the moment as most apps aren't able to use all four cores.  Two will sit idle 95% of the time.

It's fine if you're doing a lot of multitasking I suppose..  But there aren't many people around that can claim true mulitasking usage on here.


----------



## mep916

Respital said:


> Okay unless you would like to type off something or give us a link to that article that is spam because your just advertising a magazine, not actually telling the us pros and cons of these processors.



Yeah, he's not spamming. I reference MaxPC all the time.


----------



## Timo

Q6700 is faster stock, OC's higher (10multiplier) and is about the same price or cheaper?


----------



## maroon1

I don't think that Q6700 is faster at stock speeds.

I think that Q9300 and Q6700 perform the same at stock


----------



## maroon1

Respital said:


> The Q6700 would be the better chose for gaming.
> Because of it's slightly higher clock speed and 2Mb more cache.



You forgot the fact that Q9300 has an improved architecture. So, just because Q9300 has less cache and less clock speed doesn't mean it performs worse.


----------



## Timo

If the Q6600 is an average of 7.4% slower and the Q6700 is clocked 11.1% faster then the Q6600... I'd reckon it's faster then a Q9300... And still, you're going for a Q9300 which is bound to be overclocked. And I am sure Q6700 will out-overclock it.


----------



## maroon1

Timo said:


> If the Q6600 is an average of 7.4% slower and the Q6700 is clocked 11.1% faster then the Q6600...




And who told you that 11% higher clock means 11% higher speed on average ?

11% higher clock might give you 11% increase in some specific applications, but not on average, because not all applications are CPU-intensive.


----------



## Timo

In games I normally see an performance improvement of a percentage that is greater then the clock percentage. But ofcourse this normally means you're CPU was bottlenecking a bit 

Still, I'd take Q6700 over Q9300. Cheaper and you won't notice much difference (well, not any would be a better word but ofcourse 3Dmark06 shows a little difference... Very little).


----------



## reddevil6

would the 9300 OC higher than the 6700?


----------



## ChrisUlrich

reddevil6 said:


> would the 9300 OC higher than the 6700?



Prob not... prob very close if not less.  The Q6700 clocks quite high.  Over 4.00ghz I believe.


----------



## Quick69GTO

Sorry to those who thought I was spamming. It wasn't intentional.
The magazine article goes into more depth than anyone is willing to write here in this forum so that's why I mentioned it.
There is no link to the article so I can't give you all one.

Later


----------



## lovely?

ChrisUlrich said:


> Prob not... prob very close if not less.  The Q6700 clocks quite high.  Over 4.00ghz I believe.



your partially right.

the only reason today's q9300's cannot overclock higher then the older series is solely motherboard technology. 45nm is inherently better at overclocking, but since motherboards cant handle fsb's of 2400mhz, the clocks are severely limited.


----------



## Timo

lovely? said:


> your partially right.
> 
> the only reason today's q9300's cannot overclock higher then the older series is solely motherboard technology. 45nm is inherently better at overclocking, but since motherboards cant handle fsb's of 2400mhz, the clocks are severely limited.



Either way, Q6700 will clock way way higher. Q9300 hasn't gotten over 3.8Ghz stable, and I have seen PhaseChange cooled Q6700 go to atleast 4.2Ghz... Which is very very high...

I reckon a Q6600 would even OC higher then the Q9450 because if I am correct the Q6600 will go over 3.8Ghz and stay stable (with the correct Voltage tweaks).


----------



## Geoff

reddevil6 said:


> would the 9300 OC higher than the 6700?


Nope.  The Q9300 has a much lower multiplier.


----------



## Butch M.

What do you think of OC q6700 with TT Ultra 120 to 4,00 GHz?
Can it be done.
Wich memory/Asus motherboard would you recommend for this kind of attempt.
Im building a new machine for 3D rendering so I want something to OC wildy and then to put it back on stock when not needed.

p.s. one thing is not clear to me when you talk aboth q9300 and q6700 at 3,50 GHz, wont q9300 preform better at rendering speed, couse its a 45nm and q6700 65nm?!
Thanx people


----------



## Gareth

Id personally pick a Core 2 Quad Q9450 and Overclock it.


----------



## Timo

Q9450 costs a lot more then the Q9300 and the Q9300 costs more then the Q6700, any good reason why you'd take a Q9450? It won't clock higher, not even high enough to perform the same most likely...


----------



## Butch M.

The q9300 and the q6700 cost the same at my place...so I wonder wich one for higher performance at 3D rendering.


----------



## Butch M.

Anyone...


----------



## TrainTrackHack

If q9300 costs the same as q6700, I would go for it (q9300) since they're 45nm and run cooler allowing more room for OCing, and even if you don't plan on doing any OCing the architecture is improved, meaning it's more efficient, AFAIK efficient enough to make up for the smaller cache.


----------



## lovely?

well at stock speeds the e6700 is better, and while the q9300 WOULD be better at overclocking, motherboards dont let them overclock well at all.


----------



## Butch M.

Wich one for better OC would you choose?
ASUS P5K Premium/WiFi-AP or ASUS P5W DH Deluxe/WiFi-AP?
Thanx


----------



## MosIncredible

I'm not a fan of the Q9300 by any means. If you want a 45nm quad, get a Q9450, Q9550, or Q9650 (Q3 release). Q6700 is a hands down choice for me in this situation.


----------

