Standard CPU's vs Overclocked

[Born_2_Kill_83]

I currently have a Q6600 running @ 3.6 stable, yet to master 3.8 but when I get time I think it might be possible.

Question is theres many quad cores on the market now, how much/which one would I have to folk out for to get better performance than my Q6600 @ 3.6. The only increases I can see is the memory caches, other than that they appear to simply be overclocked as standard?

 

[jak731]

45nm quads are on average 10% faster then the 65nm quads at the same speed, so (if my maths is correct) a 3.2GHz 45nm quad is what you are looking at to match your cpu performance

Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme Edition QX9770 "LGA775 Yorkfield" 3.20GHz (1600FSB) - Retail
£767.99
£902.39 inc VAT


maybe what you want
thats if you give up overclocking

 

[mk17]

tough question. I run cpu-intensive simulations, but I'm going to hold on to my [email protected] for at least 12 months - if I can summon the fortitude.

I figure Nehalem's first outings are going to cost an arm and a leg, between the cpu itself, new mobo, new block, etc. and hopefully take advantage of some Penryn price drops by then. I'm hoping for a 9650 price-plummet (for unlocked multi) to extend system life for another 6-12 months after that.

The nehalem's look quite phenomenal however, so I may avoid the Penryn intermediate, I think a lot will depend on benchies/reviews on release.

Anyway, enough rambling. If your mobo can push the FSB, you may very well be looking at a 9450 pushed to about 3.3GHz to match the Q6600. This will cost you c.£200 atm, but I've heard the 9550 will occupy this price point in a month or two.