Processor preference

qwerttty

qwerttty

qwerttty

Associate
Joined
20 Oct 2005
Posts
70
Sup gents, building a new rig soon (waiting for the new gtx260 cards to come down 50quid ish) I've realised that i can stretch my budget to afford a Quad Q9300 (1333FSB one) over a Q6600.
Question is, is it worth upping the processor? It's only a 0.1 stock GHZ gain (FSB is the same). So obviousley the choice lies in the Q9300's OC abililty. I know the Q6600 is an excellent OC'er, but is the Q9300?
(sorry for the cross post just that OC'ing sub forum is dead).
Thanks gents.
 
The 45nm CPUs (Yorkfields and Wolfdales) are quicker clock for clock than the 65nm CPUs (Conroes, Q6600s etc) and run cooler as well, I'm not totally sure on the overclocking potential but it shouldn't be all that bad. If there isn't much of a price difference (say £20 or less) then I'd go with the Q9300, otherwise I think I'd still be tempted by the Q6600 and overclock, putting the money saved towards something else.
 
The Q9300 is a bit pants really, less cache per core pair than the Q6600 and a lower multiplier, so it's more difficult to OC.
 
The difference between the 2 for same FSB is £20 with the q9300 being the dearer. Although the q9300 is OEM whilst there does not exsist an OEM version for the q6600 (1333FSB).
 
The Q6600 is considered by most to be better than the Q9300.

qwerttty said:
The difference between the 2 for same FSB is £20 with the q9300 being the dearer. Although the q9300 is OEM whilst there does not exsist an OEM version for the q6600 (1333FSB).
Click to expand...

err...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-172-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=793&name=Intel%20Core%202%20Quad%20Pro%20Q6600%20"Energy%20Efficient%20SLACR%2095W%20Edition"%202.40GHz%20(1066FSB)%20-%20OEM

£45 less than the Q9300.
 
Last edited:
err...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showp...groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=793&name=Intel Cor e%202%20Quad%20Pro%20Q6600%20"Energy%20Efficient%2 0SLACR%2095W%20Edition"%202.40GHz%20(1066FSB)%20-%20OEM

£45 less than the Q9300.
Click to expand...

Only 1066 FSB though, the 1333FSB version is more expensive.

Also this system will have to last me a while (poor student here :P), so maybe it would be better going for the Q9300 which is 45nm tech, and in theory should have a bit more life in it before its deemed useless.
 
both cpus are the same, one comes with a guarantee if YOU cant overclock it to 3.00GHz, you can get it exchanged or something. my b3 stepping q6600 does 3.2 and the b3 stepping q6600 are considered poor OCers compared to the g0 cpus.
 
Im guessing the cheaper Q6600 can have its FSB upped to 1333 without having a tantrum as intel just make the chips the same and change the FSB in the final stages? and that energy effeciant mumbo jumbo is just as they processor needs less power.
 
Last edited:
qwerttty said:
Only 1066 FSB though, the 1333FSB version is more expensive.

Also this system will have to last me a while (poor student here :P), so maybe it would be better going for the Q9300 which is 45nm tech, and in theory should have a bit more life in it before its deemed useless.
Click to expand...

As jak731 says the Q6600s offered by OcUK are exactly the same, because, well, simply the Q6600 is a 1066mhz FSB part. There isn't another option here, for some reason OcUK label them as 1333mhz or 1466mhz FSB in their guaranteed overclock range.

The only benefit to them is that if they don't reach 3ghz or 3.3ghz you can return them for another, it is up to you if that is worth the extra cash but since most Q6600s will do 3ghz anyway (and the OcUK guaranteed ones aren't specially selected from what has been said) then I'd save the cash.
 
Ahh thanks jak731 and semi-pro cleared up a great deal of confusion for me there, since i got such decent responses ive decided to save a whole load of dollar and go for the OEM q6600 at £110. This shall be used with Asus P5Q Pro Intel P45 mother board and 4GB of corsair PC2-6400C5 ram with a GTX260 (as iv'e heard they are a decent set of RAM and MB for oc'ing). Im aware that i cant go SLI with that MB, but will there be compatibility problems at all?

Question though ive gone for the scythe mini-ninja cooler, (no idea tbh about coolers and who doesn't love ninjas? :P). This an ok cooler?

thanks again, you guys are my beacon of pc knowledge in an otherwise pc world 'tard like backdrop. :)
 
the mini ninja may be ok mate so give it a go but if you really are serious about overclocking, put the money saved on the cpu towards a new "full size" cooler. tuniq or TRUE are highly regarded by many.
 
I'm going to be using an Antec Three Hundred Ultimate Gaming Case to save money over the twelve hundred and 600/900 case (cant remember which one it is). I'm guessing it'd be large enough to house the larger ones (i hope so :P), but would it have enough airflow? (The 300 hundred has a total of 5 fans)
 
5 fans is quite a lot to most people... i have the 900 and the 4 fans in that are immense...

i would check to see if the cpu coolers fits the 300 first before buying as they are newer than the 900 and not everyone will have tried and tested them yet.

Anyone know about the antec 300?
 
Done some research.. it fits.. but barely :P, it'd mean no side fan for me.
So another piece of info to add to the pile, antec 300 + tuniq tower 120 cooler is all gravy :D.

The tuniq comes with a thermal compound as well.. should i rely on this or buy one of the custom ones?
 
Last edited:
qwerttty said:
Done some research.. it fits.. but barely :P, it'd mean no side fan for me.
So another piece of info to add to the pile, antec 300 + tuniq tower 120 cooler is all gravy :D.

The tuniq comes with a thermal compound as well.. should i rely on this or buy one of the custom ones?
Click to expand...

The compound already applied is usually pretty good. It's useful to have some of your own around as well for future needs.

MX-2 is meant to be the best to go for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom