This might seem like a redundant question, but what exactly is SSE4, and what impact does/will it have on games?

Do you think there will be a big difference between the current Q6600 and the upcoming Q9450? I ask because I really want to build up a system now, so I can play games now, but the 9450 is only about a month away. It will cost more, though....

Would the wait really be worth it, or will an OCed Q6600 serve me well over the next year or so?

SSE4 is for media applications and helps encoding/decoding such as taking a MP4 and converting it to a DivX. It will allso help with HD content playback for those without a GPU that does it.

The main difference between a Q6600 and a Q9450 is that the Q6600 is 2.4GHz stock and the Q9450 is 2.66GHz stock. The replacement for the Q6600 is the Q9350 where as the Q9450 will replace the Q6700. The main difference in cost is you can get a Q6600 for $250-290 and a Q9450 for about $300-320.

I would say get the Q9450 as it will OC better, run cooler and the SSE4 instructions will help in some things. I saw a QX9650 OC'ed to 4GHz on air and it was running at 35-45c compared with a QX6850 which was running at 40-55 clocked the same and on air too.

Given that the Q9450 costs $316 each to retailers, I can only imagine they are going to go for around $400, perhaps even more. Also, the 8x multiplier would necessitate a $300 mobo, as the Foxconn (the cheapest x38) only OCs to around 430. Considering the fact that I don't do anything but game with my Windows box, I doubt I'll need the extra SSE4 stuff.

Putting everything in perspective, it seems like I'd be fine with a Q6600. With one of those OCed to around 3.4GHz, I doubt I'll be CPU bound for at least a year or so. I've been waiting a long time to get back in the games, and I don't think I can justify waiting an extra month, only to pay at least $200 more for questionable gains.

And don't forget the extra l2 cache.

I would wait for the Q9450 myself. See how it does. You don't want to buy something now that you'll regret about later do you? Only one month. You've waited this long, a month won't be a problem

hmm, i would wait, unless you have to, for 2 reason

Fiddlesticks and poppycock! I guess I will wait. I agree with everyone, it does make more sense to wait. Even if I am shelling out a few hundred extra, it will probably be worth it in the long run. And when I sat down and thought about it, I'd really only have to wait an extra two-three weeks, as I'm not going to be able to put anything together until the end of December anyway.

umm... what are the reasons?

If you wait another month. Then why not wait another month for prices to come down a bit. Then another month for a new chip again. Then another month because there may be another reason.

Drudge: That was pretty much my mentality going into this. However, I've realized that the higher overclockability, higher cache, and SSE4 is worth the wait. Penryn/Yorkfield/whatever it's called, is quite a step up from Kentsfield from a number of stand points. Plus, I actually have some valid reasons for waiting that go beyond the desire for faster hardware. If this was just an incremental upgrade (ie: the difference between the Q6600 and the Q6700), I wouldn't hold by breath. However, we're on the cusp of a major update.

I'll put it this way: I'm building up a system mid-January, Q9450 or not.

How's that goin for ya, it's mid-January

minor as compared to oc of a q6600 at low fsb vs the high fsb needed for the 45nm chips.

make sure you can clock over the 3.6ghz sweet spot

if you mobo can run high fsb of 450-550 stick with the q6600

From all that I've seen/read about the two - If you already have one - an overclocked Q6600 will continue to serve you well. Mine's going nowhere until my next build, which will be some time after Nephalem hits the streets.

For a new build, that's a bit different, I think. I know myself well enough to fully understand that I would have the Q6 for the month or two, but would eventually spend the money again for the Q9 because I'd wonder about the difference. But I'm an idiot like that, so.

Having said that, there's extra reason to wait: New GPUs are looming for Feb/March. And I know myself well enough to fully understand that I'd end up spendi......

So yeah, I would wait and do it all once.

I'm in a similar situation as the poster. Sold my old DS3, RAM and GPU with a promise of my chip in Jan when the Q9450's came out but now with the delay and the hassle i'm getting i don't know weather to plump for the q6600 and get him off my back or hang on for the Q940 and hope it comes in Feb. 12 meg of L2 Cash and the promise of lower temps certainly sounding good to me for the slight price increase, even if it does come with an 8x muliplyer the lower temps should counter balance that surly?

If time is not pressing you then I would wait and get a Yorkie but as they are an interim chip, i expect they will be somewhat like the AM2 was to 939...a lot of extra expense for very little real world performance gain. Even the OCing may not live up to expectations, especially without spending more $ on a new MB and ram. For the difference, you could put a Q6600 on water and get 3.9-4.0ghz. I am considerably more interested in new GPU enhancement than CPUs as any C2D at 3.2+ghz will out pace a GTX/Ultra.

In the end, I went with a Q6600. Really do not feel like waiting for what will most likely amount to marginal speed gains. I'm at 3.6 GHz @ 1.45v stable, 67*C hottest core, full load. I could probably push it to 3.7 or 3.8 stable on air, but I'm not one to brush up against the ceiling.

After a lot of research, it seems like the difference in real world performance between a Q6600 and a Q9450 would not be that huge. Essentially, if person A had a Q6600 and person B had a Q9450, both of them would end up replacing their chips at around the same time.