The difference between the QX9650 and Q6600 is the following: 3.0Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz 1333 vs 1066 FSB 65nm vs 45nm 12mb vs 2x4mb L2
The QX9650 is $1,100 while the two I were considering were around $250. I really don't think I'm going to get 4 times the value out of that CPU, especially when in a years time I can drop in the same chip and still have spent less for 2 CPUs. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Winterlight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been trying to decide the same choice for my media > editing/encoding box. I didn't know about the E8400 Wolfsdale, as I > was looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz . Is the only > difference the cache size, and, of course, the cheaper price? > > Am I the only one considering Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Yorkfield > 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache? It can be had for what I paid for my dual > 3.56Ghz Xeons five years ago. I bought them in the 2/04 and four > years later they still do everything I need to do and they don't seem > old to me at all. As long as the premium ASUS motherboard holds up > they should continue to do their job well into the future. The only > down side is power cost, they suck up as much electricity as my > refrigerator, but they have proved to be a great value to me. > > I see the same future value for the QX9650. And the Extreme CPUs > offer maximum versatility, as well as holding their value remarkably > well. Unless I see something better this is the choice I will probably make. > > > > > > >So I'm debating between these two CPUs: > >Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) > >E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) > >
