Next value to Q6600

ozzyDe · 25 Nov 2009 at 22:06

After all the replys about the Intel Q6600,I thought I would also ask
What is the best value for money Intel chip now, is there one as overclockable as the Q6600 without the massive cost ?
Or is AMD now Producing any rival chips?

SlugForAButt · 25 Nov 2009 at 22:41

Lol.
You're just inviting everyone with a decent overclock to defend their chip.

Put on your tin helmet and keep your head down! The flak will fly...

ozzyDe · 26 Nov 2009 at 00:51

gives them something to talk about, besides its good to know how diffrent CPU's overclock with diffrent systems, it's like Katie Price if you have that much Silicon then why not flaunt it

SMAndy · 26 Nov 2009 at 07:56

Totally right, Slug...

Is a 700Mhz OC on an AMD chip comparable? 3.5Ghz from a 2.8GHz stock PII X3 720 BE

Check my sig for the CPU-z validation.

I haven't had any trouble at all with playing games. Doesn't bottleneck anything that I can see, runs brilliantly. Got it under a TRUE rev.c

Phill4321 · 26 Nov 2009 at 16:23

Doesn't seem to be much in the way of budget cpu's from intel right now. Especially with the price of motherboards and memory being so high.

ozzyDe · 26 Nov 2009 at 22:31

SMAndy, not that much, I was thinking of things over a 1gig overclock.
but good for you..

Rroff · 26 Nov 2009 at 22:36

I got my Q9550 up from 2.83gig to 3.825gig for normal useage and will go well over 4gig but I don't like the voltage that needs to be stable - even at 3.825gig tho performance is rocking.

Q9400 on a P43 board or one of the cheap P45 if you can happen to find it is prolly best bang for bucks if you can manage a 4+gig OC on it.

mame · 26 Nov 2009 at 22:58

Best value CPU I ever had was an E2180 @3.2Ghz. I think it cost £51 new about 2 years ago.

gamesaregood · 26 Nov 2009 at 23:55

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18068218

2.2GHz Dual ---> 3.2GHz Quad

JonJ678 · 27 Nov 2009 at 00:43

The q6600 is legendary. It overclocked well and held its own for generations to come. I'm fairly confident the next one that will have the same claim to fame is the x58's 920. It overclocks from 2.66 to 4ghz in the hands of almost anyone and pushes 5ghz under sufficient cooling. For the cost of £200 or so this is spectacular, I'm confident it's the best value for money on the market at present (though I will make exception for the amd dual cores which amd didn't bother neutering properly, if you're a gambling man).

Of course, this doesn't apply if you're not doing anything that can use such processing capacity, in which case you wouldn't have bought the q6600 when it was current technology either.

jorzeh · 27 Nov 2009 at 01:04

Tin foil hats for the win

but really.. I5 750 is the new Q6600 for overclocking

SlugForAButt · 27 Nov 2009 at 01:06

I've got to go with gamesaregood. You can buy a dual core, get another 2 cores for free AND overclock, KAPOOOOOWW! That's got to blow all the others into the weeds in terms of bang for buck.

aowc02 · 27 Nov 2009 at 01:42

Any consideration being given to the Q9550? or is the i5 simply in a class of its own?

uv · 27 Nov 2009 at 07:43

Without changing your mobo, best bang for buck would be an e84/5/600 from the members market. 4Ghz for ~£80.

I'd say keep the quad, but I'm making the change myself from a Q6600 to E8500 today - then again, my quad only does 3.3

Phill4321 · 28 Nov 2009 at 01:35

Personally I would keep the quad.

Rroff · 28 Nov 2009 at 04:10

aowc02 said:
Any consideration being given to the Q9550? or is the i5 simply in a class of its own?

Aslong as you get a good overclocking Q9550 it still holds its own well against the i5 750 clock for clock - tho can't do so well against the 860 in anything that can use the extra threads effectively.

MOOGLEYS · 28 Nov 2009 at 10:15

uv said:
Without changing your mobo, best bang for buck would be an e84/5/600 from the members market. 4Ghz for ~£80.

I'd say keep the quad, but I'm making the change myself from a Q6600 to E8500 today - then again, my quad only does 3.3

I have an E8400 @ 4ghz and a q6600 which i run @ 3.2ghz day to day. I get better results from the q6600 and generally is an all round faster cpu. Running the quad at 8x400 gives better results than the e8400 in all benchmarks.

I would keep the Q6600..

uv · 28 Nov 2009 at 10:37

MOOGLEYS said:
I have an E8400 @ 4ghz and a q6600 which i run @ 3.2ghz day to day. I get better results from the q6600 and generally is an all round faster cpu. Running the quad at 8x400 gives better results than the e8400 in all benchmarks.

I would keep the Q6600..

My main machine is primarily for gaming - I'll see much better results with a 4ghz dual than a 3.3 quad in most games (especially the games I play - UE2/Source/Q3 engine stuff).

MOOGLEYS · 28 Nov 2009 at 10:46

uv said:
My main machine is primarily for gaming - I'll see much better results with a 4ghz dual than a 3.3 quad in most games (especially the games I play - UE2/Source/Q3 engine stuff).

Mine is too, i thought i would see better reults thats why i got the E8400. But even at 4ghz the quad at 3.2 8x400 gives me better results. It could be the higher FSB ? Tbh in games the E8400 at anything over 3.6ghz made no difference at all. It could be because i,m running Xfire 5770.

Zillio · 30 Nov 2009 at 17:45

Source engine, for one now uses all cores on my quad. Most new games I buy seem to be using all of the cores too. Developers switched to multicore due to the PS3 and Xbox supporting multicore games? No one seems to program games with the PC primarily in mind anymore, hence why we have not seen much advancement in game graphics in the last 2 years.

Glad I went quad, I would not tell anyone to go dual core now.