-
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.
Q6600 or go 45nm?
- Thread starter Dale
- Start date
With air, the Q6600 is more likely to clock and run 24/7 since 45nm do not respond well on voltage and running 45nm with insanely high volts 24/7 to keep it stable will most likely kill it.
Clock for clock the Q9xxx series is superior, but the problem is to get them clock for clock. At the moment, and only with a good investment in cooling you can keep a Q9450 near 4Ghz for 24/7 usage. (being lucky enough to get a chip capable, NOT common)
On the other hand, a Q6600 (which is already dead cheap) will clock with a relatively cheap and good HS.
Clock for clock the Q9xxx series is superior, but the problem is to get them clock for clock. At the moment, and only with a good investment in cooling you can keep a Q9450 near 4Ghz for 24/7 usage. (being lucky enough to get a chip capable, NOT common)
On the other hand, a Q6600 (which is already dead cheap) will clock with a relatively cheap and good HS.
Last edited:
Although I do agree with you I think your logic is wrong.
Yes, clock for clock the Q9xxx series perform faster but it is easier to get a Q9xxx to a higher clock than it is a Q6600.
If you read this forums the new Q9xxx seem to be far more likely to run at say 3.6Ghz than a Q6600 will so in all probabilty you will get a better overclock from the Q9xxx chips with the same cooling.
However, a few extra percent performance in clock for clock speed and maybe an extra 200Mhz on average on stable overclock speeds does still not make it worth buying one since the price difference is £130 unless you must have the absolutely fastest system possible.
It is better to spend the £130 saved on better mobo/memory/cooling (especially watercooling) and get the Q6600. Overall you will for the same money end up with a faster system
Were you read that a Q9450 will clock easy? Remember that running 1.5v through a 45nm chip you play sudden death really.
Everyone is having problems with with the new series chips, mostly stability. Well, if you don't care though about orthos/prime/occt 8 hour long stability then is np.
Associate
The g0 stepping on the q6600 means it is more likely to give reliable overclocks, factor in the price saving, it makes q6600 vs q9xxx a clear choice in most cases. However you did not state that you wanted a 45nm that was a quadcore, for example you will probably clock higher with a 45nm dual e8xxx than the q6600 plus prices are more comparative, also consider lower power consumption and cooler running and for q6600 vs e8xxx I would start to sway towards the e8xxx
Soldato
If you want high clocks go for a E8400/8500. I personally think the 2 processors are aimed at different markets.
E8400/E8500 - High end gaming with fast GPU's ( GX2, G200 .... )
Q6600/Q9 - General all purpose processor.
Sounds strange to call a Quad general purpose I know but seems to fit the bill when you consider OC potential.
E8400/E8500 - High end gaming with fast GPU's ( GX2, G200 .... )
Q6600/Q9 - General all purpose processor.
Sounds strange to call a Quad general purpose I know but seems to fit the bill when you consider OC potential.
Associate
also should mention that the duals are the sweetspot now but when more applications become optimsed for multithreading they will become much more useful
Yeah at high clocks. People are expecting the 4Ghz as you can get with the E8xxx dual cores then they will be disappointed. Quads never overclock as well as dual cores.
People gettting 3.4/3.5 at 1.3v stable so I don't know where your 1.5v reference is from. Only people trying 1.5v are people on water trying to get 3.8 - 4.0 Ghz. And yes they are mad and likely to kill their chip just like E8xxx owners if they try the same.
And your " only with a good investment in cooling you can keep a Q9450 near 4Ghz for 24/7 usage. (being lucky enough to get a chip capable, NOT common)" applies to Q6600 equally.
There are many a poster on the "ocuk guaranteed Q6600" thread who can't get their Q6600 stable at 3.2Ghz and above.
So I would say the new Q9xxx chips are no worse than the Q6600 chips but as stated, they are not worth the money.
Also, if the original op is not bothered about quad, then he ought to look at the E7200 which is about £85. Clocks to over 3.5Ghz easily acheivable with 10x multiplier and saves another £55 over the Q6600.
Associate
