• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Q9300 vs Q6700

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

MR-FIX-IT

Disabled
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Location
Somewhere on Long Island
Which CPU is faster, no overclocking..

Clock for clock, same video card and memory...

2.5Ghz 6MB cache 1333FSB vs 2.67Ghz 8MB cache 1066FSB...

Building a SQL 2005 server...
 

subverb

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Location
NY
I'd go Q6700 personally as its a quicker clock and a bit higher L2 Cache.

The new 45nm quads shine at the Q9450 and higher with the 12mb of cache. Between these 2 I'd go Q6700 hands down.
 

evomac

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Location
Northern NJ
Honestly the Q9300 is a poor chip. With its very low multiplier and low L2 cache it makes for a poor performing cpu. I would go as far as saying the Q6600 is a better chip even if the price was even. If you are comparing Q6700 -> Q9300 the Q6700 wins hands down.

If you are set on the 45nm series, get the 9450. Microcenter has them available online for only $299 (difference of 20 bucks compared to the 9300). Well worth the extra couple dollars.
 
OP
MR-FIX-IT

MR-FIX-IT

Disabled
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Location
Somewhere on Long Island
Thanks for the quick replies...

I don't care if its cooler or runs more green. Its a freakin server, and at the time, the Q6700 was out of stock. Thanks... Both chips are coming..But I'll be returning the Q9300.

I thought the lesser cache would be an issue. Why did they do that??
 

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
if you looked at the reviews a few sites, they directly compared the Q6600 to the Q9300. the Q9300 won not by much though, in that comparasion. Q6600 has the better bang per buck but the Q9300 is the better cpu. reguardless of L2 cache, in gaming the double of L2 = 6% increase in gaming. all other areas are not effected by L2, the only other programs that would benifit the extra L2 are programs like SETI/FAH.

in a server situation depeding on what its doing, the other parts of the pc will be the bottleneck. things like data serving will be on the Hard drives and network, more then the cpu.

*edit*
nvm i missed that in your first thread. you wont see a big difference in a q9300 vs q6700 for doing SQL.
 
Last edited:
OP
MR-FIX-IT

MR-FIX-IT

Disabled
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Location
Somewhere on Long Island
I would rather have 4 faster cores and more cache, and live with the slow FSB.. I could always upgrade down the line... The P5E supports it...

It going to have eight 74 gig SAS drives. Two in RAID 1 for the boot, and 6 in RAID 5 on a 8 channel Highpoint Rocket RAID 3520...
 

blazed

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Toronto, Canada
The slightly higher clock speeds of a Q6700 doesn't make up for the fact that the Q9300 is faster clock per clock. The Q9300 is the better CPU but the older 65nm quads are cheaper and so can be a better buy.