Hey, I was wondering if I get Q9450 is it possible to overlock it to 3.2GHz using Asus P5W DH Deluxe with 4GB of PC6400 ram?

yeah you should be able to do it as you only need you up the fsb to 400.which many boards are capable in standard form.

I dunno why you'd pay the extra price for that processor over a q6600 though.  45nm quads really shine with unlocked multipliers, but with a max 8x multiplier I don't recommend this chip for the price unless power consuption is an issue.

well lower power consumption means less heat and means can overclock further!makes sense no?

Not really.  Most mobo max out between 450-525 fsb with a quad core processor.  
 
q9450
450 x 8 = 3.6ghz
525 x 8 = 4.2ghz
 
q6600
400 x 9 = 3.6ghz
500 x 9 = 4.5ghz  
 
Of course I realize that temp and voltage will prevent all but the "golden" q6600 chips from reaching 4.5ghz, but it has been done before on air.  A good q6600 will still get 4ghz on air and a bad one will max around 3.6ghz.
 
The point is that unless you know your motherboard is going to do smoking fast FSB speeds the q9450 isn't worth the price hike.
 

well do you benefit 4.5ghz in everyday use?clock speed doesnt mean much these days.as the core 2 family have proven this point when it launch back then.plus even with slower clock 3.5 vs 3.6 the q9350 still wins the q6600.understand?or do you want proof?

I should note that I'd run out and buy a q9450 if it's max multiplier was 9 instead of 8.  Same goes for the q9550 which is even more expensive ($500) and still only gets an 8.5 multiplier.  They just don't offer good bang for the buck.
 
However, at some point money isn't an object when buying your CPU; then it's time to step up the extreme line with the unlocked multipliers.  They are vitually identical (cherry picked) versions of the consumer grade 45nm quads that perform extremely well; pun intended.

the new core have better performance per clock so you should get same performance with lower clock.

You do realize it's much harder to gain fast FSB with quads right?
 
If you can only squeeze 400fsb out of your board do you really think an overpriced q9450 @ 3.2 is going to be faster than q6600 @ 3.6?  
 
Not a chance.  Given equal FSB speeds the q6600 will always be faster, but if you don't believe me you can go dig up the tests and read up on peoples main complaint with the 45nm consumer quads.  LOW MULTIPLIER.
 
 
Higher multiplier is your friend.

new cores are about 8% faster at the same clock speed, but if you can't get within 8% of the same clocks its a moot point

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] q9300.html
 
have a read then tell us what you think?i think its enough for every games and application.

The Yorkies with the larger cache will perform similiarly to a Q6600 clocked 400mhz faster.  That is what the early benches are confirming and if you look in the Xbitlabs article you will see a QX9770 (3.2ghz) matching the Q6600 at 3.6ghz so this is a reasonable observation.  Therefore a Q9450 at 3.6ghz should be quite a performer.

lol i guess we will all see when the things come out should we?no point fighting over some "theory" right?

Indeed, what turns is most disappointing to us moderate OCers is the low multipliers of the Q9xxx. Thus people today rather get the Q6600 over the Q9300 or Q9450.

Dont listen to people who tell you not to get the Q9450.  Obviously it is in your budget, or you wouldnt have mentioned it.
 
People with the 45nm tech make the people with the 65nm tech feel like they are obsolete.    Enjoy your chip!

One actual result was a Q9450 @ 3.08ghz had a Super Pi (1M) score equal to my Q6600 @3.46ghz.  It is pretty easy to get 3.4ghz out of the Q9450 with an 8x multi and that would put it in the realm of a Q6600 @ 3.8ghz.  What is disappointing about that?

Synthetic benchmarks means squat. Does faster Super Pi results into noticeable frame boost in games? No, it doesn't. So your argument is invalid.

exactly!!!wait for the actual release of the cpu then follow by a full review using a retail sample then we will go on from there.

There shouldn't be much difference between the engineering sample and the retail ones. My point is that real benchmarks are where it really counts, unless you like to run synthetic benchmarks all day.

Well, iluvgillgi ll you posted the xbitlabs article...did you happen to actually read it?  Looks like there were plenty of 'real world ' apps and games to compare the penryn quads against the Q6600.  Seems to be right in line with what I have said.

of course i have read it.i know what you trying to say.but as i would still wait for the official q9300 to come out any many different website testing it and get the REAL WORLD difference.

  It's as official as it gets. Sure, there may be some differences, but it will be minimal.