Best value overclockable Quad?

Biomanic · 19 Apr 2008 at 10:19

Hi all.

Iv got a E6600, poor stepping,and want to move to a Quad core. Im doing intence rendering tasks, and need a quad that is reliable for 24/7 use when overclocked.

Which is the best bang for my buck at the moment?

Cob · 19 Apr 2008 at 10:22

Q6600 by a loooooooooooong way.

WJA96 · 19 Apr 2008 at 10:28

Yep. Q6600 G0's can be had new for £120 delivered and they'll take a seriously high voltage without fear of damage. They run reasonably cool and are pretty much guaranteed to run at 3.3-3.6GHz or even more if you have the cooling to cope.

The Yorkfields are very expensive, unproven as retail overclockers and the spectre of electron migration is always there, stopping you increasing voltages to get a better, stable, overclock.

Kearney_1988 · 19 Apr 2008 at 10:57

yup people will reccomend the Q6600 all day to you on here

Devil_Spawn · 19 Apr 2008 at 12:41

Kearney_1988 said:
yup people will reccomend the Q6600 all day to you on here

me being one of them. q6600 rocks

Biomanic · 19 Apr 2008 at 12:48

Thanks guys.

Hows this one? BX80562Q6600/SLACR

WJA96, where are they for that price? I also saw the Q9300 2.50GHz 'Yorkfield' hows this compare?

Cob · 19 Apr 2008 at 12:58

Yip that's it.

And they're certainly worth the money if you will be using the extra two cores.

WJA96 · 19 Apr 2008 at 13:04

Biomanic said:
WJA96, where are they for that price? I also saw the Q9300 2.50GHz 'Yorkfield' hows this compare?

I can't tell you and you can't ask. Try Froogle.co.uk on a regular basis as lots of places have one-day sale type offers.

Mana · 20 Apr 2008 at 07:44

q6600 @ 3.4ghz on air, running stable 24/7, greast value for money and it destroys all encoding tasks i throw at it

-iceblade^ · 20 Apr 2008 at 08:36

easily the q6600. nothing comes close, tbh...

though the 9850BE does try to put up a fight

Dark_Angel · 20 Apr 2008 at 12:04

Though everyone has already said it, the Q6600. I went from a dual @3GHZ on to a Q6600 @3.1 (motherboard is limiting me, so need to buy a new one I guess :/)

Awesome upgrade, in my oppion.

hardtarget · 20 Apr 2008 at 13:20

What advantages does the new Intel Q9450 have over the Q6600? I know its 45nm and 2.66 GHz L2 Cache12MB, but in real terms? Anyone had both if so did you notice any difference?

Cob · 20 Apr 2008 at 13:22

More cache, SSE4, less voltage.

The Q9450 probably isn't worth it unless you're going to be using software that can take advantage of over 8mb cache and is optimised for SSE4.

hardtarget · 20 Apr 2008 at 13:33

Cob said:
More cache, SSE4, less voltage.

The Q9450 probably isn't worth it unless you're going to be using software that can take advantage of over 8mb cache and is optimised for SSE4.

So as a gamer it would be a waste of time, better off with either E8400/E8500 or the Q6600?

-iceblade^ · 20 Apr 2008 at 13:41

yes.

to answer your previous question, at the same clockspeed, the Q9450 will be faster than the Q6600...

BusError · 20 Apr 2008 at 15:29

The yorkfields also use 30W less ! i know most people here don't care, but I do :-)

my system runs 24/7... over a few years it becomes considerable beer money :-)

WJA96 · 20 Apr 2008 at 15:58

BusError said:
The yorkfields also use 30W less ! i know most people here don't care, but I do my system runs 24/7... over a few years it becomes considerable beer money

I'm not sure that's correct - I think you're confusing Thermal Design Power with actual power requirements. And you'd need to run it an awfully long time to save enough power to make up for the fact that it costs twice as much.

WJA96 · 20 Apr 2008 at 16:00

hardtarget said:
So as a gamer it would be a waste of time, better off with either E8400/E8500 or the Q6600?

As a gamer, at the moment, you might as well run a Celeron 440 at the same clockspeed. Current games are very rarely CPU limited.

joedeath332 · 27 Apr 2008 at 15:29

WJA96 said:
As a gamer, at the moment, you might as well run a Celeron 440 at the same clockspeed. Current games are very rarely CPU limited.

Agreed that Quad core are not as good for gaming , but the OP also said he does a lot of "intense rendering tasks" , now this is where the Q6600 comes into a world of its own.
I have my Q6600 @3.6 on air (1.4v in cpuz ) and i use my pc mostly for gaming, but it is *** that when you start a game up you do not have to close every other application / plus the 20 IE windows that i usually have open

WJA96 · 27 Apr 2008 at 16:07

joedeath332 said:
Agreed that Quad core are not as good for gaming , but the OP also said he does a lot of "intense rendering tasks" , now this is where the Q6600 comes into a world of its own.
I have my Q6600 @3.6 on air (1.4v in cpuz ) and i use my pc mostly for gaming, but it is *** that when you start a game up you do not have to close every other application / plus the 20 IE windows that i usually have open

Yes, the OP is indeed doing lots of rendering, but, as so often happens these threads someone asked a supplementary question about dual-core vs. quad-core, which was the question I was answering there. And, as you partly confirm, the truth is that there isn't much benefit to even having a dual-core or a Core Solo at the moment for most games.