Fudzilla
April 16, 2014, 01:55:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Fudzilla Forum is open
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Difference Between Q9450 Part Numbers BX80569Q9450 / BX80569Q9450A ?  (Read 18123 times)
fwoot
Full Member
***
Posts: 128


rex1234_5@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2008, 10:02:51 AM »

well like many others on this site my pc is primarily for gaming so i can't really justify upgrading to nehelam, but my girl friend does use my pc alot to use CS3 and so fourth so i'm just assuming that the Q9450 would be the best compromise over the E8400 as it'll be able to run games at good fps on a 22 inch screen (with a good gpu), crunch in multi threaded applications like CS3 (if indeed it is at all) and represent some possibility of being semi future proof.
Logged
Bono
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 36


16031415
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2008, 01:23:28 AM »

well like many others on this site my pc is primarily for gaming so i can't really justify upgrading to nehelam, but my girl friend does use my pc alot to use CS3 and so fourth so i'm just assuming that the Q9450 would be the best compromise over the E8400 as it'll be able to run games at good fps on a 22 inch screen (with a good gpu), crunch in multi threaded applications like CS3 (if indeed it is at all) and represent some possibility of being semi future proof.

Check benchmarks Q9300 vs. E8500 and AMD Phenom X4 9850

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2282401,00.asp

You can benefit from extra two cores only if you encode video, and rendering page before. Nobody knows when programs will be capable of using multi cores. But if you want to be future proof then get Q9450.
Logged
fwoot
Full Member
***
Posts: 128


rex1234_5@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2008, 10:17:28 AM »

thanks again for the info but why isn't there a big difference cause I just assumed if you were editing a photo in raw that you'd be able to getbetter performance from the two extra cores?
Logged
Bono
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 36


16031415
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2008, 03:34:52 PM »

thanks again for the info but why isn't there a big difference cause I just assumed if you were editing a photo in raw that you'd be able to getbetter performance from the two extra cores?

4 cores are better if you use some other program beside photoshop, but photoshop will not benefit much from two extra cores. Difference between Q9550 and E8500 is around 20%, and with quad core memory becomes a problem. With 4 cores you need fast as you can find memory so you can utilize all cores properly and to avoid any queues. With photoshop is also problem that on 32bit system it can only allocate maximum of 2GB of ram(3gb max with /3gb switch), and on 64bit system maximum od 3.95GB. So its up to you if extra money is worth it, probably atm no, but with release of 64bit photoshop things could change.


See text below:

Quote
Intel-based architectures don't necessarily add memory bandwidth as they add cores. A single CPU on a system with limited memory bandwidth can often saturate the memory bandwidth if it just moves a big chunk of memory from here to there. It even has time to do several arithmetic operations in between and still saturate the memory. If your system is bandwidth-limited and the operation you want to do involves moving a big chunk of data (bigger than the caches) from here to there while doing a limited number of arithmetic operations on it, adding cores cannot speed it up no matter how clever the software is. Many Photoshop operations are in this category, for instance.

AMD's architecture adds memory bandwidth as you add CPU chips, but taking advantage of it can be dependent on placement of the data into different areas of physical RAM attached to the different chips. It doesn't do any good if all your data gets put into one of the memory banks -- then you're right back where you started.  So, the memory system and how it's used will have a big effect on how many things speed up when you add more cores to a computer.
Logged
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2008, 01:32:55 AM »

The E8400 represents the most value for the money.  With the stock HSF, the CPU can reach around 4.0GHz under 1.40v, whereas the Q9450 can only reach around 3.80GHz for $150 more.  However, in the long run (considering that one isn't upgrading to Nehalem until 2010 or later), the Q9450 would be a better choice.

The stock cooler for E8400 is a cheapo aluminum crap... I very doubt it will get you 4 GHz at all, even 3.20GHz will be hard to keep the temperature under the Intel specifiied maximum.

It depands on what you are doing... If you have crap hardware you may buy now. If you have some "E" in your system you can skip any update, except you have a special reason for example because you like to render videos.


best,

Eliot.
Logged
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2008, 01:36:35 AM »

You can benefit from extra two cores only if you encode video, and rendering page before. Nobody knows when programs will be capable of using multi cores. But if you want to be future proof then get Q9450.

There is no "future-proof". With next generation you can throw your DDR2 rams and boards away, because you need DDR3...  It will get more expensive and the Damurai will get some money back they are loosing in resent days.

Best thing is a) to buy now and skip the first generation Nehalem or b) start banking your money.


best,

Eliot
Logged
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2008, 01:39:35 AM »

thanks again for the info but why isn't there a big difference cause I just assumed if you were editing a photo in raw that you'd be able to getbetter performance from the two extra cores?

The problem with Photoshop is, Adobe still recommands 32bit version, so the biggest bottleneck is not the CPU but memory and harddrive. A raw photo takes lot of memory, at 32bit, you are limited to 2GB, Photoshop is heavily swapping it's own stuff on it's own swapping file... so fast HDDs is paramount to be happy with it.

More core may help on some calculations but as long as swapping takes ages, you can save some money only using dual-cores Smiley


best,

eliot
Logged
Jon
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 234


swallow your pride.

audiofreak39@gmail.com AuDioFreaK39
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2008, 02:42:39 AM »

The E8400 represents the most value for the money.  With the stock HSF, the CPU can reach around 4.0GHz under 1.40v, whereas the Q9450 can only reach around 3.80GHz for $150 more.  However, in the long run (considering that one isn't upgrading to Nehalem until 2010 or later), the Q9450 would be a better choice.

The stock cooler for E8400 is a cheapo aluminum crap... I very doubt it will get you 4 GHz at all, even 3.20GHz will be hard to keep the temperature under the Intel specifiied maximum.

It depands on what you are doing... If you have crap hardware you may buy now. If you have some "E" in your system you can skip any update, except you have a special reason for example because you like to render videos.


best,

Eliot.

Oh, you'd be quite surprised at what you're calling "crap" in relation to Intel's specified TDP.  A friend of mine has his E8400 running 450 x 9 (4.05GHz) using only 1.3675 volts and running completely stable 24/7.  The new 45nm architecture represents a major shift in power consumption and effectively reduces the 65nm performance-per-watt ratio to an all time low.
Logged

Core i7 Extreme 965 {} EVGA X58 SLI Classified Limited Edition{} 6GB Mushkin XP Series DDR3 1600MHz 7-8-7-20 {} EVGA GeForce GTX 295 Plus [Quad-SLI] {} Thermalright TRUE Copper
fwoot
Full Member
***
Posts: 128


rex1234_5@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2008, 12:31:21 AM »

is ddr3 really the way to go? I'm not just talking about price but mainly the actual performance because everything I've read openly indicates that monitoring the performance of ddr2 to ddr3  is still unclear and indecisive and while ddr3 can hit highier frequencies the latencies are still a bit wigged out?
Logged
Bono
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 36


16031415
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2008, 05:58:29 PM »

is ddr3 really the way to go? I'm not just talking about price but mainly the actual performance because everything I've read openly indicates that monitoring the performance of ddr2 to ddr3  is still unclear and indecisive and while ddr3 can hit highier frequencies the latencies are still a bit wigged out?

Yea he talked about future upgrade options, and we talked performance wise. I think that with today technology if you do not look at upgrade options (promotion of new product every 3-6 months) you can avoid upgrading for few years. Gains from one technology to another are not so substantial like it was before. Around 10 to maybe 30 per cent at best, that why i like more AMD they do not switch to new technology every few months. Latencies are high, they cost few times more than DDR2 and only good thing is they need lower voltage to work. Like my friend needed to have newest DDR2 memory 2 years ago, he payed 800 for 4GB of ram, now those 4GB of ram with lower latency costs 80.
Logged
fwoot
Full Member
***
Posts: 128


rex1234_5@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2008, 02:10:58 AM »

yeah my computer was built in 2005 and my 1G OCZ DDR2 PC2-4200 Platinum Enhanced Bandwidth Ltd. Revision 2 Dual Channel (3-2-2-8) cost me $700, so while it was the quickest ram for my platform at the time i've become a lot more humble in my expectations (and hopefully smarter) Smiley
Logged
manwe
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 72


siavash.sameni
View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2008, 01:58:59 PM »

is ddr3 really the way to go? I'm not just talking about price but mainly the actual performance because everything I've read openly indicates that monitoring the performance of ddr2 to ddr3  is still unclear and indecisive and while ddr3 can hit highier frequencies the latencies are still a bit wigged out?

Yea he talked about future upgrade options, and we talked performance wise. I think that with today technology if you do not look at upgrade options (promotion of new product every 3-6 months) you can avoid upgrading for few years. Gains from one technology to another are not so substantial like it was before. Around 10 to maybe 30 per cent at best, that why i like more AMD they do not switch to new technology every few months. Latencies are high, they cost few times more than DDR2 and only good thing is they need lower voltage to work. Like my friend needed to have newest DDR2 memory 2 years ago, he payed 800 for 4GB of ram, now those 4GB of ram with lower latency costs 80.
i still prefer old and beloved DDR , with really low latencies , lol .
it's wiser to pay 1/5 - 1/10 of the money for DDR2 instead of DDR3 right now , because the performance that you'll gain with 5 to ten times of money is just about 1/10 - 1/20 , so if you even think about it upgrade wise ,you'll see it's not reasonable either , because you'll save about for example 500$ and in 2 years from now DDR3 prices have became half or 1/3 or even less than current price , so you'd be able buy Ram and Mobo with that kind of money,


moreover if you invest your money in my country's banks you'll end up with 17.5% of interest each year , and the dollar value is constant so you'll end up saving about 150$  Grin lol Smiley

but seriously it's stupid to buy DDR3 right now
Logged
Eliot
Fudzilla Crew
Full Member
*****
Posts: 107


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2008, 01:34:41 PM »

Oh, you'd be quite surprised at what you're calling "crap" in relation to Intel's specified TDP.  A friend of mine has his E8400 running 450 x 9 (4.05GHz) using only 1.3675 volts and running completely stable 24/7.  The new 45nm architecture represents a major shift in power consumption and effectively reduces the 65nm performance-per-watt ratio to an all time low.

The cooler is crap anyways... running a CPU on its specified max. temperature all the time is not a good idea anyways... with 1.3675V he got very lucky... Smiley


best,

Eliot
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!