I've seen a lot of comparisons where they overclock a 6300 to beat the stock speeds of a 6700 extreme, for example, but no head-to-head comparisons of overclocking a 6600 in any of the reviews I've read. Is it because, as I have seen and others seem to be finding, that the 6600 is pretty much a 3.2ghz oc limit with stability, unless you get one of the rare "primo" chips? I have seen a few reviews where the 6300 was overclocked to 3.4-3.6ghz. Whether you can play on it at that speed and how it would compare performance-wise to a 6600 overclocked to 3.2, with the larger cache is of great importance, since I invested $300+ for a 6600. I hate to go out and spend another $150+ for a 6300 only to find out that a 6300 at 3.6 < a 6600 at 3.2ghz.
Any links to reviews or forum threads would be appreciated. I've scanned several here and on other tech/oc sites, but I may just not be looking for the right word parse or on the right forum.
The lower the cpu speed the higher fsb the hoter the north bridge. When you talking long term you want a nice blanced system that means keeping the north bridge under resonable temps. 375-385fsb is a nice range for 975 chip set probably the same for the 965. check the temp of the nb with your hands if its blisteringly hot its too high.
you want the e6600 for extra cache for $100 extra plus it run faster the the 6300 - do not believe thg when tell you an e6300 is faster then x6800 - they didn't even oc the x6800
bottom line is if you can swing the extra cash the e6600 is the sweetest chip next to the qx series
Thanks DS, That's kind of what I figured, but I wanted a second opinion or 3. I like my system, I just wasn't sure if by some fluke of logic a 6300 could be overclocked and run faster/better than a 6600, which didn't make sense.