E6600 VS Q6600

Born_2_Kill_83 · 20 Aug 2007 at 09:50

Just a quick question I was pondering over
Which would be the better/faster CPU, a standard Q6600 or a E6600 overclocked to 3.2GHZ?

iamwhoiam · 20 Aug 2007 at 10:01

Easy? Quad core Q6600... just because you'll notice the benefits of quad core sooner or later.

Anyways, the Q6600 can be pushed up to those speeds. It might not be initially faster than the E6600 of course, but remember there's two extra threads you can run things on when needed

truebluecfc · 20 Aug 2007 at 10:09

Also why would you even consider a E6600 when you plan on overclocking, you can just get a E2160 for half the price which will OC to 3.2GHz.

djralford · 20 Aug 2007 at 11:25

Eventually multi cores will be the mainstream, also yes Q6600's do not O/C to the level of duos unless you either have some mean cooling or a really good chip as they run very very hot, I have mine upto 3.2Ghz on air @ 1.375 VCore Getting a max load temp of 63*. You can always add more Mhz to a duo, but you cannot add two more cores.

Snapshot · 20 Aug 2007 at 14:48

truebluecfc said:
Also why would you even consider a E6600 when you plan on overclocking, you can just get a E2160 for half the price which will OC to 3.2GHz.

Because some applications respond well to a decent amount of cache.