Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 185
Whats your evidence of this actually happening?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Is the Q6600 any good?
- Thread starter Retro6
- Start date
Same for the Q9550 really - though mine was highly dependant on board for how well it clocked - on a premium P45 board it would do 4.5GHz but on other boards like the EVGA 750i SLI FTW, various Asus 680, 780 and P35, etc. I had it was a struggle to get it stable at 4GHz.
I've still got a few of the 5000 series Xeons LGA771 IIRC equivalent to the Q9650 and Q9550 knocking about somewhere but not much use unless people have the right board for them or know how to do the pin mod - unfortunately they don't seem to overclock very well though.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 185
Yeah I had a couple of those Xeon chips as well. They seem to run a little hotter than the retail chips as well. But that 10x multi is nice, because with 1600mhz FSB you can get a slick 4.0GHz right out of the gate.
I have an asus P5Q3 and this was one of my better OCs...
Soldato
This is making me want to dig out my Q6600 now and see if it will do 1600FSB for a 3.6GHz clock speed. It does 1333 all day everyday at 1.2925v or something, (the one under 1.3v on my motherboard). It's a cheapo G41 DDR3 motherboard so I've got the RAM for it but I'm surprised the board even takes the 1333 overclock tbh!
Yeah I had a couple of those Xeon chips as well. They seem to run a little hotter than the retail chips as well. But that 10x multi is nice, because with 1600mhz FSB you can get a slick 4.0GHz right out of the gate.
I have an asus P5Q3 and this was one of my better OCs...
thats a very impressive clock of 4.5ghz if its linpack/prime stable. my q9650 would do 3.6ghz on 400fsb at stock volts. id still be using it today but due to lack of AVX instructions the kiddo cant use background editing in ms teams
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 185
Best stable OC prime95 was around:
I ran it mostly at 4.3 because it was still stable for my purposes:
best OC (hail mary) was:
best userbenchmark (i know)
Core 2 was a great platform. To think, this quad at 4.5GHz scores 385 single core. Granted I have 18 cores, but my Xeon 2696 v3 only scores 415 single core. Not much difference there.
Maybe I will make a post to show off your core 2 overclocks
I had the QX6700 when it came out and I struggled to get 3.6Ghz stable, I remember it was one hot chip! Loads of blue-screens on my Asus board, but ran like a dream on an EVGA 790i. My favourite 775 chip was the E5300; budget dual-core, but you could do insane (for the time) overclocking.
Soldato
I have a E6700 (a very late and budget model dual core pentium fol 775, not an early Core 2 Duo) which has a low FSB (1066MHz) and high multiplier (x12). It posts and will install Windows at 4GHz (1333MHz x 12) but I haven't played around with it enough to say it's stable stable.
IIRC my E6600s all topped out at 3.825GHz really and took a lot of volts, not advisable for 24x7 operation, to get 4GHz. IIRC I mostly ran them at 3.6GHz which was only required a comfortable voltage level, but it has been awhile.
That said I ran one of my Q6600s at crazy volts on a secondary PC as mentioned and it survived fine - but I was resigned to it possibly dying prematurely while I've always been leery of that in my main systems which I rely on more.
That said I ran one of my Q6600s at crazy volts on a secondary PC as mentioned and it survived fine - but I was resigned to it possibly dying prematurely while I've always been leery of that in my main systems which I rely on more.
It does seem whoever is behind that site has lost the plot. The 5800X3D "review" is laughable, not even subtle in their bias. A deep dive into who is behind it and how they are financed/motivated would be very interesting.
Soldato
Dave runs User benchmark. 
Soldato
Beat me to itDave runs User benchmark.
Soldato
Daves probably behind it
Associate
If you are intending on running Windows vista and a bunch of programs from that era then it's a pretty good cpu. If you wanna use Windows 10 then I'm betting a current gen celeron will do a lot better.
As far as CPU power goes Windows 10 should be OK - I'm running several tablets which have CPU performance similar to the Q6600 and 4 cores, which are fine with it. (Well as fine as anything ever is with 10...). I'd use 7 over Vista though if running an OS of that era.
The amount of RAM might be another consideration though - with 2 or even 4GB of RAM Windows 10 doesn't exactly shine.
There's not much to say about it really. It was a good quad core CPU at the time, much improved performance in games if I recall correctly.
It's 15 years old, and definitely slower than the 1st gen i7. My dad still uses an i5 950 and it's definitely showing it's age, even for general use in Windows. But, this kind of CPU can generally keep up with Windows updates which can hammer your CPU, so it's still better than the below par CPUs (such as Celerons and Pentiums) found in many laptops.
It's 15 years old, and definitely slower than the 1st gen i7. My dad still uses an i5 950 and it's definitely showing it's age, even for general use in Windows. But, this kind of CPU can generally keep up with Windows updates which can hammer your CPU, so it's still better than the below par CPUs (such as Celerons and Pentiums) found in many laptops.
Last edited: