Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 vs. Q6700... benchmarks?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 8, 2007 4:03:24 PM

How does the Quad 6600 stack up vs. the Quad 6700. Is its price to performance ratio a good buy now? Or will it only be a good buy once the price drops to the $500 range?

Also, is it a good idea to wait to overclock, thus saving the life of the CPU till it starts to struggle to run programs at max settings. At that point, overclock the heck out of it?

Are there any benchmarks on real world Quad performance overclocked vs. stock. My impression is that the quads can run everday programs, under normal/realistic mutlitasking levels, at max noticable capacity @ stock. Overclocking won't necessarily provide a major boost in real life performance... at this point... am I wrong?

Thanks.

More about : q6600 q6700 benchmarks

February 8, 2007 4:33:58 PM

I been using a Q6600 for over 6 month now (not overclocked) and runs great in all applications. Games starts and runs faster on the X6800OC but nothing can beat the Quad Core for photoshop, Sony Vegas, etc..

I built a QX6700 (not overclocked yet) few weeks ago and can't tell the diff. between the two.

Should be a great value if you edit videos.
February 8, 2007 4:37:17 PM

Quote:
I been using a Q6600 for over 6 month now (not overclocked) and runs great in all applications. Games starts and runs faster on the X6800OC but nothing can beat the Quad Core for photoshop, Sony Vegas, etc..

I built a QX6700 (not overclocked yet) few weeks ago and can't tell the diff. between the two.

Should be a great value if you edit videos.


I thought the Q6600 was just released? Are you talking about an C2D e6600?

Thanks.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 8, 2007 5:02:56 PM

Quote:
I been using a Q6600 for over 6 month now (not overclocked) and runs great in all applications. Games starts and runs faster on the X6800OC but nothing can beat the Quad Core for photoshop, Sony Vegas, etc..

I built a QX6700 (not overclocked yet) few weeks ago and can't tell the diff. between the two.

Should be a great value if you edit videos.


I thought the Q6600 was just released? Are you talking about an C2D e6600?

Thanks.

I was one of the lucky few and got a 2.4GHz Quad Core summer of last year.
February 8, 2007 5:25:24 PM

If young worked for Intel, I can see getting one early, but not in the summer. The release date for the QX6700 was November, and the first previews of Kentsfield didn't start rolling in until almost October. My point on this matter is, don't throw around fud, just be honest with people. Otherwise, you, young, sound ridiculous.

Now, twistedsister, besides the bump up in 266mhz, the QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, the Q6600 does not. That makes for greater overclocking capabilities. You might not be able to see a real world difference in performance between the two, but once you start to reach 1ghz overclocks, you can tell the difference. From what I've read about the Q6600, it doesn't overclock as high as the QX6700. That's most likely due to the locked multiplier and the fact that it is clocked 266mhz slower at stock speeds. As of now, the price difference between the two is minimal. Heck, I got my QX6700 for $915. If you can wait a few months for the price to drop on the Q6600, do it. But if you're in the market now, go for the QX6700. I don't think you'll be disappointed be either one.
February 8, 2007 6:35:46 PM

Quote:
If young worked for Intel, I can see getting one early, but not in the summer. The release date for the QX6700 was November, and the first previews of Kentsfield didn't start rolling in until almost October. My point on this matter is, don't throw around fud, just be honest with people. Otherwise, you, young, sound ridiculous.

Now, twistedsister, besides the bump up in 266mhz, the QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, the Q6600 does not. That makes for greater overclocking capabilities. You might not be able to see a real world difference in performance between the two, but once you start to reach 1ghz overclocks, you can tell the difference. From what I've read about the Q6600, it doesn't overclock as high as the QX6700. That's most likely due to the locked multiplier and the fact that it is clocked 266mhz slower at stock speeds. As of now, the price difference between the two is minimal. Heck, I got my QX6700 for $915. If you can wait a few months for the price to drop on the Q6600, do it. But if you're in the market now, go for the QX6700. I don't think you'll be disappointed be either one.


I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).

What about my question on overclocking... just a waste right now? Wait till the processor becomes a little outdated with the marketplace to save chip life?
February 8, 2007 6:57:03 PM

Quote:
If young worked for Intel, I can see getting one early, but not in the summer. The release date for the QX6700 was November, and the first previews of Kentsfield didn't start rolling in until almost October. My point on this matter is, don't throw around fud, just be honest with people. Otherwise, you, young, sound ridiculous.

Now, twistedsister, besides the bump up in 266mhz, the QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, the Q6600 does not. That makes for greater overclocking capabilities. You might not be able to see a real world difference in performance between the two, but once you start to reach 1ghz overclocks, you can tell the difference. From what I've read about the Q6600, it doesn't overclock as high as the QX6700. That's most likely due to the locked multiplier and the fact that it is clocked 266mhz slower at stock speeds. As of now, the price difference between the two is minimal. Heck, I got my QX6700 for $915. If you can wait a few months for the price to drop on the Q6600, do it. But if you're in the market now, go for the QX6700. I don't think you'll be disappointed be either one.



maybe young does not work for Intel but he works for a company that does lots of business with Intel. Maybe young has good relationship with Intel and sometimes gets good toys to play around with.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...

you korbin44 just got owned and should not flame!!!

young ask for a Penyrn sample and lets see how lucky he gets this time.
February 8, 2007 7:18:31 PM

Quote:


I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).



You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.
February 8, 2007 9:19:02 PM

Quote:


I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).



You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

Cool, you'll have to keep informed on your rig specs and anything you learn to maximize photoshop performance.

So you were going XP 64 (to support your ram)... honestly I wouldn't mess with that. At least Vista 64 will have much more driver support and will have a much larger consumer base in the future. 64 bit IS the future, just a matter of when it goes mainstream.

Last time I heard, CS3 was a Q2 release... dang I hope it doesn't get delayed.

I'm going to try 4GBs of ram at first to see if it's manageable for a year or so... if so, I could save some serious $$$ as 2GB sticks come down in price.

Yeah, I also plan on being 8GB or more in the next 2 years.
February 8, 2007 11:07:31 PM

Okay, young, here's the deal. CPU Z has a verification program. Did you verify your screenshots back then? If so, where's the proof? You could have photoshoped the pictures, who knows. But I do know that Intel would have had a fit if you where doing this before tech sites like Anandtech, or Tomshardware. The are certain guidelines and restrictions put on review sites. Besides, who's gonna risk there job just to get you an ES of Kentsfield over a month before benmarks are publicly posted on on these tech sites? Give me a break, dude. You might as well start telling everyone you have an ES of agena, or barcelona. Post some pics of that. I didn't come here to flame you or get flamed, but it's disappointing when people have to lie to get attention.
February 8, 2007 11:21:07 PM

Twisted Sister wrote:
Quote:
What about my question on overclocking... just a waste right now? Wait till the processor becomes a little outdated with the marketplace to save chip life?



I don't think overclocking is a waste at all. With the unlocked multiplier of the QX6700 you can go from 2.66ghz to 3.33ghz without any adjustments to the vcore. Just up the multiplier to 11 and the FSB to 300. It's really that easy. And you will notice the difference from stock to overclock in real time. Chip life isn't as big a factor as you would think. These cpu's are built to last, and even with an overclock they'll last for 3-5 years. By then, you'll want to upgrade.
February 9, 2007 1:17:53 AM

Quote:
Okay, young, here's the deal. CPU Z has a verification program. Did you verify your screenshots back then? If so, where's the proof? You could have photoshoped the pictures, who knows. But I do know that Intel would have had a fit if you where doing this before tech sites like Anandtech, or Tomshardware. The are certain guidelines and restrictions put on review sites. Besides, who's gonna risk there job just to get you an ES of Kentsfield over a month before benmarks are publicly posted on on these tech sites? Give me a break, dude. You might as well start telling everyone you have an ES of agena, or barcelona. Post some pics of that. I didn't come here to flame you or get flamed, but it's disappointing when people have to lie to get attention.

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see? :wink:
February 9, 2007 11:07:40 AM

Quote:


I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).



You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

Cool, you'll have to keep informed on your rig specs and anything you learn to maximize photoshop performance.

So you were going XP 64 (to support your ram)... honestly I wouldn't mess with that. At least Vista 64 will have much more driver support and will have a much larger consumer base in the future. 64 bit IS the future, just a matter of when it goes mainstream.

Last time I heard, CS3 was a Q2 release... dang I hope it doesn't get delayed.

I'm going to try 4GBs of ram at first to see if it's manageable for a year or so... if so, I could save some serious $$$ as 2GB sticks come down in price.

Yeah, I also plan on being 8GB or more in the next 2 years.

I'm no software specialist nor rocket scientist, but here is what I understand and I AM BEGGING EVERYONE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG!!!!!!!

1) Under XP Pro 64 I can allocate 4GB to current 32bit CS2 Photoshop alone, leaving the other 4GB free for other apps, OS, etc.

2) THG's front page today states that Vista actually runs slower than XP, ReadyBoost etc. or not. Their conclusion is that you're better off throwing more conventional RAM at XP than messing around with USB Flash Drives, etc. with Vista.

3) I want 2xQuads since I'm looking for FORWARD COMPATIBILITY. I know damn well that it's way overkill today, but I wanna buy my box this summer/autumn, plunk it in my room, hook it up and FORGET ABOUT IT until 2010 at least. I don't wanna upgrade it, change it, modify it or do anything but work on it for a few years. I don't make my money replacing components on my PC, I make money working on a well-operating, efficient, up-to-date PC.

4) I don't game. So DX10 means zilch to me. I use video like crazy and need high quality, but I can't see any video development on the horizon that is gonna require DX10. High end DX9 will be just fine, thank you.

5) I need fast, secure and ample storage. OS/Apps on 150GB Raptor, Data on 4x750GB 7200.10s on RAID 5 should do the trick. Sure, I could put the OS/Apps on a 32GB RAMdisk but the basic question remains "is it worth it to save maybe 2 minutes total a day?"

6) I couldn't care less if the CPU says AMD, Intel or FisherPrice.

Those are pretty well my requirements and the direction I'm going in right now. I have no use for server hw, so if I can avoid 771/FB-DIMMs, etc. then great. If I can't, then that's great too.

I JUST WANT IT TO WORK FINE AND GO ZOOM ZOOM.


:lol: 
February 9, 2007 11:13:14 AM

Quote:

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see? :wink:


HA HA! Got ya beat! :D 

February 9, 2007 11:45:08 AM

Quote:


I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).



You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

Cool, you'll have to keep informed on your rig specs and anything you learn to maximize photoshop performance.

So you were going XP 64 (to support your ram)... honestly I wouldn't mess with that. At least Vista 64 will have much more driver support and will have a much larger consumer base in the future. 64 bit IS the future, just a matter of when it goes mainstream.

Last time I heard, CS3 was a Q2 release... dang I hope it doesn't get delayed.

I'm going to try 4GBs of ram at first to see if it's manageable for a year or so... if so, I could save some serious $$$ as 2GB sticks come down in price.

Yeah, I also plan on being 8GB or more in the next 2 years.

I'm no software specialist nor rocket scientist, but here is what I understand and I AM BEGGING EVERYONE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG!!!!!!!

1) Under XP Pro 64 I can allocate 4GB to current 32bit CS2 Photoshop alone, leaving the other 4GB free for other apps, OS, etc.

2) THG's front page today states that Vista actually runs slower than XP, ReadyBoost etc. or not. Their conclusion is that you're better off throwing more conventional RAM at XP than messing around with USB Flash Drives, etc. with Vista.

3) I want 2xQuads since I'm looking for FORWARD COMPATIBILITY. I know damn well that it's way overkill today, but I wanna buy my box this summer/autumn, plunk it in my room, hook it up and FORGET ABOUT IT until 2010 at least. I don't wanna upgrade it, change it, modify it or do anything but work on it for a few years. I don't make my money replacing components on my PC, I make money working on a well-operating, efficient, up-to-date PC.

4) I don't game. So DX10 means zilch to me. I use video like crazy and need high quality, but I can't see any video development on the horizon that is gonna require DX10. High end DX9 will be just fine, thank you.

5) I need fast, secure and ample storage. OS/Apps on 150GB Raptor, Data on 4x750GB 7200.10s on RAID 5 should do the trick. Sure, I could put the OS/Apps on a 32GB RAMdisk but the basic question remains "is it worth it to save maybe 2 minutes total a day?"

6) I couldn't care less if the CPU says AMD, Intel or FisherPrice.

Those are pretty well my requirements and the direction I'm going in right now. I have no use for server hw, so if I can avoid 771/FB-DIMMs, etc. then great. If I can't, then that's great too.

I JUST WANT IT TO WORK FINE AND GO ZOOM ZOOM.


:lol: 

Yeah, but if you don't want to fiddle around with it... XP 64 is a low-supported dead-end OS. I'd go Vista and just bank on service pack improvements over the years.

I agree, ready boost is no substitute for real ram.

wow - 2 quads? yeah I don't have those kind of bucks to spend.

You do photography? I find it funny how most of my colleagues are SO proud of owning a Mac. They rave about it! You aren't a true "artist" unless you own a Mac - lol.

Apple has made them think that being creative and original = owning a Mac. PC's are for evil corporate empires (e.g. Gates)... yet IT IS Apple grabbing all their money with overpriced hardware. Hardware that has very limited upgrade paths and customization.

I find it ironic that they think their not corporate slaves, when really they were brainwashed by Apple (a for profit corporation).

I'm a professional marketer, so I really appreciate their brilliant branding and marketing skills. One thing about the "Mac vs. PC" commercials is that they play to the "artist" vs. "accountant" hype. This is all pretty obvious to the layman by the clothing, speech, gestures, and content. What's really interesting is how well thought out the commercials are - the "PC" is always on the viewing left and the "Mac" is on the right.

Subconscious viewer association with left brain vs. right brain functions - this was deliberate.

If people want to over pay for hardware that they enjoying using, I have no problem with that. However, I find that a lot of Mac owners are a little on the pompous side about their computing... when in fact the PC is superior in many ways.
February 9, 2007 12:20:30 PM

Quote:


Yeah, but if you don't want to fiddle around with it... XP 64 is a low-supported dead-end OS. I'd go Vista and just bank on service pack improvements over the years.

I agree, ready boost is no substitute for real ram.

wow - 2 quads? yeah I don't have those kind of bucks to spend.

You do photography? I find it funny how most of my colleagues are SO proud of owning a Mac. They rave about it! You aren't a true "artist" unless you own a Mac - lol.

Apple has made them think that being creative and original = owning a Mac. PC's are for evil corporate empires (e.g. Gates)... yet IT IS Apple grabbing all their money with overpriced hardware. Hardware that has very limited upgrade paths and customization.

I find it ironic that they think their not corporate slaves, when really they were brainwashed by Apple (a for profit corporation).

I'm a professional marketer, so I really appreciate their brilliant branding and marketing skills. One thing about the "Mac vs. PC" commercials is that they play to the "artist" vs. "accountant" hype. This is all pretty obvious to the layman by the clothing, speech, gestures, and content. What's really interesting is how well thought out the commercials are - the "PC" is always on the viewing left and the "Mac" is on the right.

Subconscious viewer association with left brain vs. right brain functions - this was deliberate.

If people want to over pay for hardware that they enjoying using, I have no problem with that. However, I find that a lot of Mac owners are a little on the pompous side about their computing... when in fact the PC is superior in many ways.



I agree fully that there is no real future for XP, 64 or not, in a Vista world. The problem I have with Vista is not just the Fascist DRM or Torquemada's own EULA but this automatic disabling spawn from hell feature it has that can just start deleting software from your HD not only without your permission but without your knowledge. What I want is something that I don't think exists even in the Linux World. I want an OS that:

1) Runs XP software natively without WINE, emulations, etc.

2) Handles minimum 8GB RAM, preferably 16GB.

3) Runs what I want it to, when I want it to, without imposing its own sw morality on me. and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BEHIND MY BACK!

4) Can be installed, maintained and operated without requiring that I go to MIT to get another degree.

Is that really too much to ask for? You wouldn't think so, but I haven't found it yet!!!

I was really excited about ReadyBoost but then the more you find out about it the more let down you are. And hybrid drives are still a fair ways down the road, so that whole reason to buy Vista has been deflated.

Two quads are really not that big of an expense. I mean when you're configuring a minimum 8GB system with 5 killer HDs, and when you take into consideration that the prices of CPUs are dropping faster than stock in Venezuelan utilities, it becomes a relatively minor percentage of the overall system cost.

I've only owned a couple of dozen Macs and my evangelism has sold a few hundred, maybe as many as a thousand. But in the late 90's I dropped Mac like a rock and haven't looked back. I have no interest in OS X, Leopard, etc. It doesn't fit my four points above either.

I recently priced out a Mac Pro to fit my requirements and it came in a hair under $9K. I can duplicate that exact same system in non-Apple hw for about $6K. That leaves $3K to buy Valentine's Day presents. And with all the chicks I have that are pi$$ed off at me this Valentine's Day, I'm gonna need it. :twisted:

Those Mac vs. PC commercials are extremely well premeditated and concocted for maximum psychological effect. The fact that they bear little if any relevance to reality is a peripheral point. Here I am, having stared at a computer screen virtually nonstop since 1981, having over a decade of experience on the Mac side and on the PC side, and can you tell me one single thing that I can do better/faster/nicer/sweeter/hotter on a PC or a Mac or viceversa? Damn near nothing. I've run Photoshop on Mac and PC. So, other than nubby buttons and a more metrosexual GUI on the Mac what is the difference? The finished file is exactly the same from both platforms, as is the process of creating it. But having been a Mac evangelist for so long, I can certainly understand Apple's marketing approach. It's one part consumer electronics, one part sexual, and one part Scientology.

And it's that last part that you really gotta watch out for!

8)
February 9, 2007 1:19:40 PM

Quote:
If young worked for Intel, I can see getting one early, but not in the summer. The release date for the QX6700 was November, and the first previews of Kentsfield didn't start rolling in until almost October. My point on this matter is, don't throw around fud, just be honest with people. Otherwise, you, young, sound ridiculous.


February 9, 2007 1:58:28 PM

Quote:

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see? :wink:


HA HA! Got ya beat! :D 



Not to bust balls, but the X would have to be dropped from that packaging, or the color scheme would be black instead of metallic blue.

Interesting to think about though. Probably the future Celeron of computing, with the DOXXX69000 (Double Oct [2 native 8 core chips in one package] X-tra X-tra X-treme 69000) being the top chip.
February 9, 2007 2:15:39 PM

Quote:

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see? :wink:


HA HA! Got ya beat! :D 



Not to bust balls, but the X would have to be dropped from that packaging, or the color scheme would be black instead of metallic blue.

Interesting to think about though. Probably the future Celeron of computing, with the DOXXX69000 (Double Oct [2 native 8 core chips in one package] X-tra X-tra X-treme 69000) being the top chip.

I know, but google image search wasn't coming up with a black box. But then again, it's about as likely as having a QX9900 anyway! :lol: 
February 9, 2007 3:21:13 PM

Quote:

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see? :wink:


HA HA! Got ya beat! :D 



...but I've had mine for 8 months now :tongue:

I know somebody who knows somebody who steals from somebody
February 9, 2007 4:21:43 PM

Quote:

...but I've had mine for 8 months now :tongue:

I know somebody who knows somebody who steals from somebody


Ah. Theft. Now we're talking about something I can relate to.

So, I'm not from Missouri, but show me! :D 
February 9, 2007 4:30:51 PM

Oddly enough enough, it's got a Q in the name, yet it says Dual core right on there.
February 9, 2007 4:33:22 PM

Quote:

...but I've had mine for 8 months now :tongue:

I know somebody who knows somebody who steals from somebody


Ah. Theft. Now we're talking about something I can relate to.

So, I'm not from Missouri, but show me! :D 

Gimme a coupla minutes....MS Paint is having issues....lol.
February 9, 2007 4:46:40 PM

Quote:
Oddly enough enough, it's got a Q in the name, yet it says Dual core right on there.


There! Now are ya happy? :lol: 

February 9, 2007 4:50:31 PM

Quote:
Okay, young, here's the deal. CPU Z has a verification program. Did you verify your screenshots back then? If so, where's the proof? You could have photoshoped the pictures, who knows. But I do know that Intel would have had a fit if you where doing this before tech sites like Anandtech, or Tomshardware. The are certain guidelines and restrictions put on review sites. Besides, who's gonna risk there job just to get you an ES of Kentsfield over a month before benmarks are publicly posted on on these tech sites? Give me a break, dude. You might as well start telling everyone you have an ES of agena, or barcelona. Post some pics of that. I didn't come here to flame you or get flamed, but it's disappointing when people have to lie to get attention.


Korbin - I guess all these people are full of crap too (link below). Anyhow I don't lie nor flame but lots of people received ES samples in late June early July time frame of 2006. Take it for what it worth because im not going to waste anymore of my time to respond back to you.



http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11...
February 9, 2007 5:00:36 PM

Quote:
Korbin - I guess all these people are full of crap too (link below). Anyhow I don't lie nor flame but lots of people received ES samples in late June early July time frame of 2006. Take it for what it worth because im not going to waste anymore of my time to respond back to you.


Hey, Korbin, back off!

I got my QX9900 final ES version (pictured above) for Xmas in 1998. I know some people who got them during the Nixon Administration. Now I have more important things to do than waste my time with you nattering nabob of negativism!!! :lol: 
February 9, 2007 5:18:08 PM

Quote:
Korbin - I guess all these people are full of crap too (link below). Anyhow I don't lie nor flame but lots of people received ES samples in late June early July time frame of 2006. Take it for what it worth because im not going to waste anymore of my time to respond back to you.


Hey, Korbin, back off!

I got my QX9900 final ES version (pictured above) for Xmas in 1998. I know some people who got them during the Nixon Administration. Now I have more important things to do than waste my time with you nattering nabob of negativism!!! :lol: 

Cap...was that before or after your marriage to.......



Morgan Fairchild!

yeah...that's the tick-et! :wink:
February 9, 2007 5:24:59 PM

Quote:
Cap...was that before or after your marriage to.......



Morgan Fairchild!

yeah...that's the tick-et! :wink:


Nah, I only dated Morgan Fairchild. I was married to Phyllis Diller, and before her, Greta Garbo. :D 
February 9, 2007 5:29:07 PM

Quote:
Cap...was that before or after your marriage to.......



Morgan Fairchild!

yeah...that's the tick-et! :wink:


Nah, I only dated Morgan Fairchild. I was married to Phyllis Diller, and before her, Greta Garbo. :D 

Phyllis Diller? Cuz she made you laugh? :lol: 

Cap...check your inbox.
February 9, 2007 5:33:05 PM

Quote:
Phyllis Diller? Cuz she made you laugh? :lol: 

Cap...check your inbox.


No, because she was the first underage chick I got to go out with me! Now you know how prehistoric the Captain is! :D 
February 9, 2007 5:37:53 PM

Quote:
Phyllis Diller? Cuz she made you laugh? :lol: 

Cap...check your inbox.


No, because she was the first underage chick I got to go out with me! Now you know how prehistoric the Captain is! :D 

Hell....shouldn't ya be a major or general by now?

Sorry, gotta get back to working on my 16 core comp...in the middle of this killer Solitaire game.
February 9, 2007 5:46:30 PM

Quote:
Hell....shouldn't ya be a major or general by now?

Sorry, gotta get back to working on my 16 core comp...in the middle of this killer Solitaire game.


I would have, but there were a few items on my service record... little things... like getting caught with the general's daughter swinging from the mess hall chandelier naked... you know... stuff like that. :wink:

Anyway, I gotta go too. Gotta go raise some hell somewhere other than here. C ya.
February 9, 2007 5:51:02 PM

overclocking does provide a major performance boost in real life, it might not be noticeable because the processor is already very fast, but it does make a huge difference. Get the 6600 and overclock it. the 6700 is not worth the money when overclocking is possible
!