Q6600 Vs E8500 for OC & Games

[Biscuit]

if those results are accurate then thats shocking, very dissapointed. Il wait for a hexus review before i make judgement properly though

[Stevo3000]

After reading that review the only people I can see buying Phenoms are rabid AMD fanboys, if there are any of those left!?

I didn't see them compare the TDP of the processor on the new stepping, but they did say that it was higher than the origional stepping, and if I remember correctly from the previous review it was pretty shocking before!

[atmadden]

Well I have read through this thread and find a few comments a bit odd. I have had a Q6600 G0 and an E8400 and overclocked the hell out of both of them. I ended up keeping the E8400 and selling the quad. The Q6600 is a great chip with top notch cooling and a high quality psu of at least 500w you should get 3.6ghz anything more is a bonus but not that many go above this. I have tried 3 and all got to around 3.6ghz but wouldn't go any higher. My E8400 will clock to 4.5ghz and handles every stress test thrown at it. But I have played safe and settled on 4.37 as it only requires 1.4v it runs this 24/7 and has been since release. As long as you don't go above 1.4v you should be ok for at least 4.2ghz and shouldn't suffer any problems with too high a voltage.

To cut a long story short you will get higher clocks on average, higher fsb tolerance (500+), much lower power consumption when overclocked with a E8400. The Q6600 is the choice if you are going to use the 4 cores which I didn't.

[Blitzen]

Well I have read through this thread and find a few comments a bit odd. I have had a Q6600 G0 and an E8400 and overclocked the hell out of both of them. I ended up keeping the E8400 and selling the quad. The Q6600 is a great chip with top notch cooling and a high quality psu of at least 500w you should get 3.6ghz anything more is a bonus but not that many go above this. I have tried 3 and all got to around 3.6ghz but wouldn't go any higher. My E8400 will clock to 4.5ghz and handles every stress test thrown at it. But I have played safe and settled on 4.37 as it only requires 1.4v it runs this 24/7 and has been since release. As long as you don't go above 1.4v you should be ok for at least 4.2ghz and shouldn't suffer any problems with too high a voltage.

To cut a long story short you will get higher clocks on average, higher fsb tolerance (500+), much lower power consumption when overclocked with a E8400. The Q6600 is the choice if you are going to use the 4 cores which I didn't.

So you think the E8*** series core is better because it clocks higher?

I GUARANTEE you my Q6600 will still be useful long after your 'dual core' has served its purpose.

Plus,......i bet in any bench mark i will not lose

Clock for clock is NEVER a good indication of the usefulness of a CPU

[j.o.s.h.1408]

WELL SAID BLITZ. if clock per clock is usefull for cpu's then i guess my p4 northwood is faster then a dual that less then 3.2ghz LOL

[kris118212]

i dont hink that the 45nm CPUs are as good for overclocking as you imagine. Yeah they can hit the high numbers but if you give them much more than stock volts it tends to shorten the lifespan quite considerably. If you are using DDR2 800 ram then that tends to be a bit of a bottleneck when using a 1333FSB CPU wheras the Q6600 has no problems at all with DDR2 800.

For games and 'messing about' i would say the the e8*** are better BUT bang for buck at the moment i would say go for the Q6600. They offer very good overclockability, a lot of people have had them up to 3.6 and i doubt you would even notice the difference between the two

[Biscuit]

i dont hink that the 45nm CPUs are as good for overclocking as you imagine. Yeah they can hit the high numbers but if you give them much more than stock volts it tends to shorten the lifespan quite considerably. If you are using DDR2 800 ram then that tends to be a bit of a bottleneck when using a 1333FSB CPU wheras the Q6600 has no problems at all with DDR2 800.

For games and 'messing about' i would say the the e8*** are better BUT bang for buck at the moment i would say go for the Q6600. They offer very good overclockability, a lot of people have had them up to 3.6 and i doubt you would even notice the difference between the two

Why u copying and pasting my earlier comments?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

lol. looks like its a q6600 for me then

[cotswoldcs]

What about the Q9450?

[Biscuit]

What about the Q9450?

If you have the money to spend then there is no real reason why you shouldnt go for it other than the performance gains over the Q6600 woulnt really warrent the extra cash.

[Webby]

Clock for clock I think we are talking a 5% performance gain oh and SSE4, but you get the same problems inherent to the 45nm process of increased voltages being really bad so I wonder if perhaps the Q6600 wouldn't still be the better chip. Q9450 also has a lower multiplier which while not guaranteed to be a problem may require faster RAM and a motherboard which supports 500+MHz FSB.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

how much speed can u achieve using stock volts on a q6600? 3.2?

[Blitzen]

I have hit 3.4ghz at stock volts and 3.8ghz upping them slightly.

I'm certain i wouldnt get to 4ghz what i did but 3.8ghz is a very good OC for a Q6600 and that would be easily as fast (probably faster) in the real world as any E8*** serires CPU.

[iranu]

problems inherent to the 45nm process of increased voltages being really bad

Q9450 runs the same voltage as E8x00 series with a maximum safe voltage of 1.3625V. There are no inherent problems with running these processors above their default voltage upto 1.3625V. The problem has been people have treated these chips like any other and think that they can whack silly voltages through them and only have to take the heat away. It's obvious that as the process shrinks then the effects voltage are going to increase. Chucking 1.45V through a 45nm chip is just pure sillyness for 24/7 operation. Hell my 90nm opty 146 venice ran at 3ghz with 1.45V. Intel have simply been more accurate with their voltage figures so even a 5% increase has the potential to damage a chip. Most people are happily running E8400s at 4 Gigglehertz below 1.3625V on air. Not sure what the average is for a Q6600 G0, but 3.0-3.6 would seem right.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

wow thats impressive. what ram did you use? ddr800? im looking to OC to at least 3.2ghz

[Blitzen]

wow thats impressive. what ram did you use? ddr800? im looking to OC to at least 3.2ghz

Yep ... the RAM in my sig.
I would be astonished if you couldnt hit 3.2ghz on stock volts as a bare minumum.