1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

Q9450 certainly faster than a Q6600

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Hades, 19 Sep 2009.

  1. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,202

    Location: Surrey

    I'm having a mini gaming session with a few friends. One of them has an almost identical system; we both have quad core, 4gb RAM, 8800GTX. His PC has a Q6600 which is mildly overclocked (not sure the exact speed - I'll find out later but he won't comeout of his game to check lol). Mine is the Q9450 running at completely stock speed due to a poor motherboard.

    He also has RAID0 while I am running a standard drive.

    Mine is beating his into new levels and game loading significantly. It must be the extra cache but I'm quite surprised how much faster mine is in real life.
     
  2. gurusan

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2006

    Posts: 13,489

    Location: Portland, OR

    game loading doesn't have much to do with CPU speed. More about HD random access times and RAM
     
  3. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,202

    Location: Surrey

    I thought that too. but he has RAID0. Memory is the same.
     
  4. alex24

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Jan 2008

    Posts: 10,771

    Both of you run hdtune and see what results you get.
     
  5. Avalon

    Soldato

    Joined: 29 Dec 2002

    Posts: 6,117

    So let me get this straight, you're comparing LOAD times and concluding that one CPU is better than the other on different boards/HD/RAID set-up's ? The only thing that's certain about this post is you're not aware of how flawed your logic is.

    Platter density, cluster size, chipset, drivers, drive speed and cache, distribution of files and a whole host of other variables involved have been overlooked and you're using an HD benchmark to compare CPU's. If you want t9o back up your statement get your friend to run benchmarks on his rig then pull the chip and put yours in and do the same, then you can tell us what's fastest in those benchmarks.
     
    Last edited: 19 Sep 2009
  6. gurusan

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2006

    Posts: 13,489

    Location: Portland, OR

    RAID 0 doesn't automatically mean fast.
     
  7. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,202

    Location: Surrey

    No, really can't be bothered. People can take or leave my anecdotal feedback. It might be right or it might be wrong but I really don't care about "backing up my statement" :)
     
  8. Avalon

    Soldato

    Joined: 29 Dec 2002

    Posts: 6,117

    That's pretty much what I expected from your OP :)
     
  9. JonJ678

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Dec 2008

    Posts: 10,371

    Location: England

    Which one of you is hosting? On paper his should be faster, due to the raid more than anything else
     
  10. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,202

    Location: Surrey

    Quakelive is one example. So neither is hosting. Same everything, including network connection.
     
  11. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: 24 Dec 2005

    Posts: 39,757

    Location: Autonomy

    I have read some BS posts in my time on ocuk but this one takes the biscuit.

    The difference clock for clock of a Q6600 and Stock Q9450 is 200mhz

    So a 2.8ghz Q9450 perfroms the same as a 3ghz Q6600.

    Your analysis is dull,inconculsive and BS:D
     
  12. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,202

    Location: Surrey

    I am sorry I am not as l33t as you ;)
     
  13. Cob

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2006

    Posts: 18,157

    Location: Antrim town

    Tbf 200mhz is a bit of a generalisation. The Q9450 is 8-10% faster clock-for-clock, and that's before the extra cache and instruction sets are taken into account (neither of which should have any real effect on level loading).


    I found that my RAID'ed Raptors made a far greater difference to level loading times than either CPU did.
     
  14. setter

    Caporegime

    Joined: 14 Dec 2005

    Posts: 28,160

    Location: armoy, n. ireland

    Having had both a q6600 and a q9550 clocked at 3.8ghz i noticed very little between them performance wise in games, raided 74gb raptors with the q6600 gave better load times as well, though due to the noise i went back to a single drive.
     
  15. breadturbo

    Mobster

    Joined: 27 Oct 2005

    Posts: 2,531

    indeed RAID makes huge diff, i barely see the load bar in arma2