Upgrading from e6600 to q6600 - heat problems?

[zircon]

I am interested in getting a new quad-core processor - the Q6600 looks like the best bet, in terms of performance, as apparently the new 45nms aren't more powerful - but I'm concerned about heat issues. My computer already seems to be kind of hot to begin with with an E6600, and as I understand it, Q6600s are worse in that area. What sort of temperature difference can I expect? I'm using an nMedia Icetank CPU cooler with arctic silver thermal paste, BTW.

[Effef]

I am interested in getting a new quad-core processor - the Q6600 looks like the best bet, in terms of performance, as apparently the new 45nms aren't more powerful - but I'm concerned about heat issues. My computer already seems to be kind of hot to begin with with an E6600, and as I understand it, Q6600s are worse in that area. What sort of temperature difference can I expect? I'm using an nMedia Icetank CPU cooler with arctic silver thermal paste, BTW.

Oh, but they are more powerful. this q9300:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115043&Tpk=q9300

It is able to easily be clocked to 3ghz on the stock cooler or even more on your cooler. The 45nm enhancements also make it generally faster.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_4.html

The benchmark results indicate clearly that all our concerns were absolutely unfounded. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 even without a larger L2 cache, only thanks to architectural improvements introduced in Penryn processors, higher bus frequency and 100MHz higher clock speed. Moreover, there isn’t a single application where the old CPU would demonstrate higher results, and the overall performance advantage is about 7%, which is quite a lot.

They are also generally around $70 more, but you get what you pay for.

Also, if you manage to find a q9450 in stock anywhere (unlikely) then grab it. It absolutely demolishes the q6600 thanks to its 12mb(!) of L2.

[zircon]

Hmm... cool. I was just going by some Newegg reviews (re: the power not being any greater) but I suppose I trust third party benchmark sources.

[Effef]

Newegg reviewers are idiots, only a few steps up from youtube commenters.

[Pyrion]

Newegg reviewers are idiots, only a few steps up from youtube commenters.

Depends on the product. If you see any from "Pyrion," that guy knows wtf he's talking about.

[Nekofrog]

I have a Q6600, got it 6 months ago when the price dropped. They are now down to $230~, and the Q6700 is at $270~. I am overclocked to 3.0GHz on stock cooling, when I get a better cooler ($50) I'm going up to 3.4.

These chips are fucking amazing, man. But you've heard me rant on about them a lot.

[Majin GeoDooD]

The 45nm chips are great. I have an E8400 myself. Due to them being 45nm they use much less power than the previous 65nm generation, and should therefore generate less heat.

[prophetik music]

I am interested in getting a new quad-core processor - the Q6600 looks like the best bet, in terms of performance, as apparently the new 45nms aren't more powerful - but I'm concerned about heat issues. My computer already seems to be kind of hot to begin with with an E6600, and as I understand it, Q6600s are worse in that area. What sort of temperature difference can I expect? I'm using an nMedia Icetank CPU cooler with arctic silver thermal paste, BTW.

in almost every benchmark i've seen, 45nm = runs cooler, and the quads have a huge improvement in basic math calculations...like the ones used in most audio applications for rendering sound, reverb, delay, etc.

the q6600 is a hot processor naturally - it runs a lot more than other quads because of it's (relatively) low l2 cache. it's worth spending a bit more on getting a q9450 or something is good. of course, based on what you're running right now, an e8400 would be well worth the cost, as well, since there aren't any audio programs out there that can utilize all four cores anyways. it's easy to overclock them on stock cooling to something like 3.3 or 3.4 without even trying...i've got a step lower, the e6850, and it's sitting at 3.3 with a shitty intel stock cooler, and it runs cooler than my e4500 did way back when.