Q6600 or Q9550?

[iamwhoiam]

I deliberately run a Q6600 because my room is f'ing cold.

 

[MagicUK]

well i have my cpu at 3.6 as per specs below, with running prime small TFT (also using intel speedstep so drops to 2.4 when on web and stuff) im pulling from my plug with one of these things that tells u how much your using with everything (2 reserators pumps too) 24" Samsung 245b =

308w at 2.4 (just on this site)
455w at 3.6 (small tft running)
505w at 3.6 (small tft running plus ozone 3D Fur benchmark running also)

500w is quite abit and looking at the total amount ive used from the total on the device i have used it since about 20th august 92.3 KW, is that quite abit and how much we looking at lol

 

[flinco]

just get a q6600 and clock it

 

[dipper17]

Q9550 - bragging rights!!!

 

[platinum87]

Yeah tbh 3.1Gig has been the most I've seen out of the last 2 Q6600's

Buy second hand if one is available...

2 from around 1 month ago went to 3.6ghz...

but yea second hand is good idea because its cheaper, and prob good clocker

 

[Pneumonic]

2 from around 1 month ago went to 3.6ghz...

but yea second hand is good idea because its cheaper, and prob good clocker

Agreed if your buying a Q6600 buy 2nd hand.. the current ones are poor clockers.. buying 2nd hand you are getting a known CPU and even a 2nd hand gauranteed clocker is going to cost you less than a new Q6600 which will more than likely be poor

 

[Rezident]

Back to the original topic with the CPUs; I've just had a quick look on the Intel Processor Spec finder and I must be interpreting the figures incorrectly. Both the 45nm and 65nm have a Thermal Design Power of 95W? I was trying to find some figures to see if there really was a huge difference but that was all I could find. Anyone got any figures that show the real world differences?

Anandtech:

Since we're dealing with the same clock speeds as Intel's 65nm processors, power consumption has definitely gone down with the move to Penryn. Let's look at this thing at idle and under load running our WME9 test:
At idle, the QX9650 draws an impressive 34W less than the QX6850 - there's 45nm high-k + metal gate transistors in action for you.

Under load the power advantage is even more impressive, with a 47W delta the QX9650 under load uses only 11W more than its predecessor at idle. If you weren't dazzled by the performance improvements of Penryn, the reduction in power consumption is worth getting excited about.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3137&p=6

 

[Farore]

Are you looking to upgrade to Nehalem eventually? If so, then go for a Q6600 like I did. Much more bang for buck...and please dont go for a 'garunteed' overclocking model.

 

[geo139]

q6600 was the first intel chip i've overclocked, and wow did it impress! got it to 3.5 easily without much tinkering in the bios, just on air!