Q6600 versus Q9300

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Todays poor overclocking Q6600s??

Ya widespread reports after maybe March/April '08 batch dates show significant drop off in Q6600 G0 overclockability that also coincide with much higher VIDs (1.3+V). Possible they transitioned some of the more refined fabs to 45nm while the last few 65nm Kentsfields were produced.

At this point I'd agree with many of the other comments, go with a 45nm if you can't guarantee yourself a G0 Q6600 with a VID in the 1.2s. The lower multi and cache on some of the cheaper Quads are definitely turn offs though, so something like a 9550 would be ideal, but also pricey. There's also the new 65w TDP Quads that were just announced, which should also be great OC'ers. Worth keeping an eye on if you're in the market for one last LGA775.

Personally I'm waiting for i5/P55 with hinted gaming performance improvements from the the integrated PCIE controller.

 

[Assimilator1]

Man that's a damn shame! , they shouldn't harm the Q6600s overclocking rep like that!

So what do the higher VID Q6600s typically overclock to?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If you can swing the extra few bucks get the Q9400 they seem to be really good clockers, I've built two systems with them and 450x8 3.6ghz was easy with just a slight bump in volts, and with good mobo and some tweaking I could get 475x8 3.8ghz stable on both machines

 

[bryanW1995]

I got a q6600 in the april-may time frame and it was a good overclocker. I also own an x3350. I would hands down recommend the Q9300 if prices are equal or nearly so unless you're looking for simply max oc. even then, however, that 3.4 on a q9300 is ~ 3.6 on a q6600, plus it will run cooler, etc etc.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Todays poor overclocking Q6600s??

Ya widespread reports after maybe March/April '08 batch dates show significant drop off in Q6600 G0 overclockability that also coincide with much higher VIDs (1.3+V). Possible they transitioned some of the more refined fabs to 45nm while the last few 65nm Kentsfields were produced.

At this point I'd agree with many of the other comments, go with a 45nm if you can't guarantee yourself a G0 Q6600 with a VID in the 1.2s. The lower multi and cache on some of the cheaper Quads are definitely turn offs though, so something like a 9550 would be ideal, but also pricey. There's also the new 65w TDP Quads that were just announced, which should also be great OC'ers. Worth keeping an eye on if you're in the market for one last LGA775.

Personally I'm waiting for i5/P55 with hinted gaming performance improvements from the the integrated PCIE controller.

Do you think you're waiting for i5 because you're already running a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz

 

[Dadofamunky]

I'd skip the 9300 and go one or two grades higher. You won't regret it. Low multis are for the birds.

If it absolutely had to be one or the other I'd go with the Q6600. It's simply one of the best and most popular CPUs Intel has ever made, for many reasons. Though the 9300 is 45nm tech, it's also severely limited by its 7x multi.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
I can buy either Q6600 or Q9300 for $180. Any suggestions on which is a better choice?

.

if you use software that makes use of SSE4 extensions then it is a no brainer the Q9300.

 

[poohbear]

I doubt that 200mhz is gonna make a difference in terms of performance (when they're overclocked).

 

[nyker96]

i get Q9300 just for the better power consumption and newer process.

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: DoubleHelix747
I can buy either Q6600 or Q9300 for $180. Any suggestions on which is a better choice?

.

if you use software that makes use of SSE4 extensions then it is a no brainer the Q9300.

Which do?