Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz OEM (no heatsink) £221.70 @ Ebuyer - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
sSpec Number - SLAWR
CPU Speed - 2.66GHz
Bus Speed - 1333MHz
Bus/Core Ratio - 8
L2 Cache Size - 12MB
L2 Cache Speed - 2.66GHz
Package Type - LGA775
Manufacturing Technology - 45nm
Core Stepping - C1
Thermal Design Power - 95W
Quad Core
Enhanced Intel Speedstep® Technology
Intel® EM64T 1
Intel® Virtualization Technology
Enhanced Halt State (C1E)
Execute Disable Bit 2
Intel® Thermal Monitor 2

Can't find any place with this in stock.

Good price for a hard to find cpu, have seen this for preorder on a well known site for £300.

Hope i've not missed anything.
Deal Tags:
More From Ebuyer:

All Comments

(7) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
suspended#1
considering intel have said the eta is august this year for the retail too be back in this is a good price :).
Although a q6600=£140 and is just as good.

Voted hot.
#2
a 0.16GHZ clock bump is not enough to justify (not taking account of 45nm technology) £75

Pretty sure any Q6600 can reach that speed

Better wrap up warm for this thread, still one of the best prices around for this CPU.
#3
The Q9300 has a clock speed of 2.5GHz which is just under 7% slower and can be bought for less than £165 delivered from Ebuyer.
IMO this isn’t worth £57 more regardless of the bigger cache (12 v 6 MB) as if you look at benchmarks once the cache size reaches 2MB per chip the performance gains of increasing it are typically small to negligible. The Q9300 has 3MB cache per chip and the Q9450 has 6MB.
#4
Agharta
The Q9300 has a clock speed of 2.5GHz which is just under 7% slower and can be bought for less than £165 delivered from Ebuyer.
IMO this isn’t worth £57 more regardless of the bigger cache (12 v 6 MB) as if you look at benchmarks once the cache size reaches 2MB per chip the performance gains of increasing it are typically small to negligible. The Q9300 has 3MB cache per chip and the Q9450 has 6MB.



I beg to differ:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=651&p=3.

When you talk about Mb per chip that is per core. These 4 core chips would translate as 1.5mb for the Q9300 & 3Mb for the Q9450. I guess whether it is worth it to you depends on your values.

I await a proper comparative review of these new chips before I am sure.

Chris
#5
nice price for the chip iteself.

Although if your only into playing games, then the E8400 and the E8500 are cheaper, and because of the multiplier can over clock to the limitation of the chip, not the motherboard (as with the new quad cores).

Most (no all) games are also threaded to make use of no more than 2 cores, so the E8400 and E8500 will run games faster.
#6
Agharta
if you look at benchmarks once the cache size reaches 2MB per chip the performance gains of increasing it are typically small to negligible.

I’m not sure why I didn’t qualify my statement as I was aware that certain games benefit from the extra cache which is why I used the word typically.
I looked at the Legionhardware link and although the gains are there especially at lower resolutions the frame rates are still very high so the tangible benefits are negligible as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to see benchmarks for games that are struggling to reach decent frame rates and see if the extra cache significantly helps in those situations. If it does I could then justify the extra cost, otherwise I feel the money would be better spent on upgrading the graphics card.

Its early days with these 45nm Quad cores so until detailed benchmarks for both chips are published we’ll just have to wait and see.
#7
Agharta
I’m not sure why I didn’t qualify my statement as I was aware that certain games benefit from the extra cache which is why I used the word typically.
I looked at the Legionhardware link and although the gains are there especially at lower resolutions the frame rates are still very high so the tangible benefits are negligible as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to see benchmarks for games that are struggling to reach decent frame rates and see if the extra cache significantly helps in those situations. If it does I could then justify the extra cost, otherwise I feel the money would be better spent on upgrading the graphics card.

Its early days with these 45nm Quad cores so until detailed benchmarks for both chips are published we’ll just have to wait and see.


Agree 100%

Chris

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!