Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 VS Q6700

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
May 4, 2008 9:50:08 PM

just out of curiosity, which one i better? the Q6600 has a stock of 2.4 ghz and the Q6700 has a stock of 2.66ghz, i planning to OC and im a seriose gamer, which one do i chose? O.o

More about : q6600 q6700

May 4, 2008 9:55:55 PM

el Greenie said:
just out of curiosity, which one i better? the Q6600 has a stock of 2.4 ghz and the Q6700 has a stock of 2.66ghz, i planning to OC and im a seriose gamer, which one do i chose? O.o

Those are identical chips, the only difference being q6600 runs on 9x multiplier while q6700 runs on 10x multiplier, so if you have a bad motherboard that's causing fsb bottleneck, q6700 will run into the fsb wall later, and thus, oc higher.
May 4, 2008 10:38:00 PM

To expand on what dagger has said, if you want to achieve a high OC for the cpu, yet your motherboard can not OC so high, the Q6700 will be worth the extra $50 for that extra multiplier.
Related resources
May 5, 2008 12:13:50 AM

get the q6700 :p 
May 5, 2008 12:22:32 AM

i see what your saying, i was plannin on getting the x38/x48 MB so...but does that mean the Q6700 will be lways .26 ghz faster?
May 5, 2008 12:44:39 AM

If you're getting the x38/x48, then the Q6600 is quite fine. You won't achieve anything faster with the Q6700.
May 5, 2008 12:46:56 AM

el Greenie said:
i see what your saying, i was plannin on getting the x38/x48 MB so...but does that mean the Q6700 will be lways .26 ghz faster?

At the same FSB the Q6700 will always be faster.

X38/x48 chips can run high FSBs though. As long as the FSB can make up for the smaller multiplier of a Q6600 AND the (mainboard) chip can handle the FSB there is no difference apart from the fact that the q6700 was tested to run higher than the Q6600.

With a X38/X48 i'm certain that you won't hit the chipsets limits while overclocking the Q6xxx CPU. Long before that happens the CPU will become unstable. Let's take the very (VERY) conservative assumption that the chipset can't handle more than a FSB of 450. That would eqal 4.050 Mhz with a Q6600 or 4.500 Mhz with a Q6700. If you intend to overclock that processor that far, you bought some serious cooling hardware and accessories to get there that cost a lot of money which defies the reason to buy a comparatively cheap Q6600/Q6700.
May 5, 2008 1:37:54 AM

Slobogob said:
At the same FSB the Q6700 will always be faster.

X38/x48 chips can run high FSBs though. As long as the FSB can make up for the smaller multiplier of a Q6600 AND the (mainboard) chip can handle the FSB there is no difference apart from the fact that the q6700 was tested to run higher than the Q6600.

With a X38/X48 i'm certain that you won't hit the chipsets limits while overclocking the Q6xxx CPU. Long before that happens the CPU will become unstable. Let's take the very (VERY) conservative assumption that the chipset can't handle more than a FSB of 450. That would eqal 4.050 Mhz with a Q6600 or 4.500 Mhz with a Q6700. If you intend to overclock that processor that far, you bought some serious cooling hardware and accessories to get there that cost a lot of money which defies the reason to buy a comparatively cheap Q6600/Q6700.

No, when fsb isn't the bottleneck, and heat and vcore is, the q6700 will not overclock higher than q6600. A q6700 at 4ghz will run just as hot and require just as high a vcore as q6600 running at 4ghz.
May 5, 2008 3:07:59 AM

The Q6700 will have a better chance at 3.8 stable and a bit higher depending on its VID. If 3.6 is acceptable, go for the q6600, they all pretty much reach that with out to much hassle. As long as you dont have a 780i for its VDroop, and a 680/650i for its lack of q6x00 series Over clocking percentage!

So if you wanted to get a 15% shot at 3.8 or a lil more, get a q6700. If 3.6 is fine, ( and maybe a 5 % chance at a super low VID like mine!) Just get a q6600. Thats about all you need. windows even loses its ability to test a quad at 3.6 or higher. Crysis uses one core at max, then two or the three at like 10-15% sooo.... need much more than that?

--Lupi
May 5, 2008 3:48:33 AM

dagger said:
No, when fsb isn't the bottleneck, and heat and vcore is, the q6700 will not overclock higher than q6600. A q6700 at 4ghz will run just as hot and require just as high a vcore as q6600 running at 4ghz.

No? "No" what?

If the FSB IS the bottleneck, as i said in my posts example, the Q6700 will run faster. As the OP asked about a x38/x48, the chipsets FSB is not the problem - as i said in my post too. So what "no"?
May 5, 2008 3:59:37 AM

If you can afford the 6700, it would be a bit easier to overclock and if not it has a slightly better stock speed.
May 5, 2008 9:15:56 PM

woulden 3.6 ghz for the Q6600 be 3.8 ghz for the Q6700? since the Q6700 has a higher stock speed wont it mean itl reach higher speed with less hassle? or, will it run at same speeds with the same hassle, for exp. say the Q6600 is at 3.6 ghz and so it the Q6700, will they run, and produce the same amount of heat? or maybe the Q6700 will produce less heat because it took less to reach that speed?

2.4 ghz to 3.6 ghz=1.2 ghz difference
2.66 ghz to 3,6 ghz= 1 ghz difference

see what im saying?
May 5, 2008 10:38:39 PM

Well, you'd think so, huh? But it doesnt seem to work that way. It appears that between 3.6 and 3.8 you are reaching the chips design limitations without exceptional cooling.

I have tested personally 10 or so q6600 and q6700s. A high VID q6700 cant reach 3.8 within intel specs. I have a SINGLE low VID q6700. 1.2375 that can get stable at 3.8. I have a SINGLE q6600 that could PROLLY reach 3.8 stable. A 1.2000 Which is the lowest VID out of anyone so far. So if I cant do it...

You are welcome to try.

Think of it this way, a q6700 is a q6600 with a 10 multiplier. Thats all. I am sure it passed something at intels shop that got them to set its clock at 2.66 and not 2.4... I hope. But from what I have seen, they are all the same.

So as I said, if you want more than a 5% chance, get a q6700, because if its VID is under 1.2500 you may hit 3.8. ALL the chips will reach 3.6ish.

Vid will determine the rest.

(Oh, and getting 3.8 stable in prime is no easy task! Its about 25 bios VCore notches to gain that extra 200 Mhz. It takes like half that to get 3.6 stable! So that first 1Ghz is free. Then your VID comes into play after that, and how easily you can OC farther depends on where your voltage started!)

Example. My 1.2000 VID q 6600 gets 20 Bios VCore notches MORE within Intel Specs over my 1.3000 VID q 6600.

My 1.2000 is stable at 3.6 @ under 1.3000 loaded.
My 1.3000 needs 1.44-1.45 to be stable.

Add that up, my friend. So as the VID is raised, and the accompanying VCore that's required for a higher VID comes into play, it AUTOMATICALLY required more VCore voltage to become stable.

Appears that it needs .0500 or more EXTRA to become stable. Thats yer High VID syndrome and chip limitations coming into play! And then the more voltage you add, the less efficient that voltage becomes, and the more that's dissipated as heat.. if you can dissipate that much!

To sum it up. As you add voltage you need more voltage. The higher the VID starting level determines how long it is before you see that High VID syndrome. The more voltage you use, the more that escapes as heat, as well as causes more heat when you use processor power. Heat means your chip becomes less efficient along with the voltage.. and you have a weird set of circumstances doing weird things and poof! 3.6! :) 

And somewhere between 3.5-3.8 there is what we will call High VID syndrome, caused by the chips limits. As it reaches upper speeds, it looks to me like there is a limit to where it will go. 3.6-3.8 Anything after that is good luck and good cooling!

Thats not mentioning that I mean Prime stable. You can run a chip higher and not see any errors at all, because you dont get no where near the drain from daily use that you get from artificial testing like Prime 95s small ffts!!

Let me know how you do, if you wanna try it for your self. If you wanna see the info, search for my VID threads.

--Lupi
May 5, 2008 10:40:29 PM

el Greenie said:
woulden 3.6 ghz for the Q6600 be 3.8 ghz for the Q6700? since the Q6700 has a higher stock speed wont it mean itl reach higher speed with less hassle? or, will it run at same speeds with the same hassle, for exp. say the Q6600 is at 3.6 ghz and so it the Q6700, will they run, and produce the same amount of heat? or maybe the Q6700 will produce less heat because it took less to reach that speed?

2.4 ghz to 3.6 ghz=1.2 ghz difference
2.66 ghz to 3,6 ghz= 1 ghz difference

see what im saying?



3.6 Ghz with a Q6600 (FSB 400/ Multiplier 9) equals 4.0 Ghz with a Q6700 (FSB 400/ Multiplier 10).

I see your point though. The problem is the CPU binning.
A Q6600 is certified to run at 2.4 Ghz. A Q6700 is certified to run at 2.66 Ghz. Almost all Intel (core) CPUs can overclock like mad but their is no rule of thumb on how they will act once you push it beyond its certified speed. An ordinary Q6600 could be a broken chip that barely runs 2.4 Ghz with 1.35 volt. Or it could be a chip that could have become an extreme edition, running 3.0 Ghz at 1.25 volt but ended up being a Q6600 because the demand is high and the Exteme editions don't sell too good. Same is true for the Q6700.
Either way you don't know what quality the chip you buy will be. That will only reveal itself once you push it.
I think that the chances are higher to get a quality chip with a higher binned part, but there is still a huge factor of luck involved.
May 17, 2008 11:15:09 PM

is it possible for a q6700 to run at 400x10 with water on it?
May 17, 2008 11:27:35 PM

If you get an exceptionally low VID and dont mind 1.55 v or higher Loaded, then sure! Prime stability is a fleeting thing at high speeds!

--Lupi
May 18, 2008 3:14:49 AM

Lupiron said:
If you get an exceptionally low VID and dont mind 1.55 v or higher Loaded, then sure! Prime stability is a fleeting thing at high speeds!

--Lupi

I doubt it. 1.55v would be way too low for 4.0ghz on 6700. It'd take at least 1.6v. :p 
May 18, 2008 5:07:37 AM

I am gonna try that next on mine, I have a q6700 @ 1.2375 VID. So I will let ya know! Glad to get a q6600 to stability at 3.8! And a mid VID chip, hehe!

--Lupi
May 18, 2008 1:43:59 PM

Lupiron said:
I am gonna try that next on mine, I have a q6700 @ 1.2375 VID. So I will let ya know! Glad to get a q6600 to stability at 3.8! And a mid VID chip, hehe!

--Lupi

Do you buy those yourself? Are you rich? Seriously, where do you get all those chips? :p 
May 18, 2008 5:48:49 PM

He steals them from a truck. Remember?
May 18, 2008 8:51:49 PM

I simply get decent deals on the things is all, since I work in the field! And I wanted to do some testing, and the only way people would accept it is if I at least had a decent array of chips to test it on!

Trust me, I think about the money, thats why I am re selling them on e bay once I am done with the testing! Just save the images and such to my database!

Look at the top of this. Talking about 3.8 stable. I mentioned that it was very hard to do, and prolly impossible to stay within intel specs.

Looks like I was wrong, because I did the 3.8 and was stable for hours! I was shocked to see it work. And all it took was some understanding of the chips signaling devices!!

I now know how to minimize VCore and get maximum frequency! 1.25000 VID, lol! Who would have thought??

--Lupi
June 3, 2008 8:32:15 AM

I have a Q6600 G0 and my VID is 1.2625 is that a decent VID or a bad one? Theoretically what could my maximum OC be? I have it a 3.2 400x8 right now, with idle temps of 34c to 36c and under load 48c to 54c.
June 3, 2008 8:51:54 AM

Its middle, easy 3.6-3.7.

--Lupi
June 3, 2008 8:55:57 AM

thats alright then, would I notice a big difference from 3.2 to 3.4 or 3.6? I do alot of video encoding and editing and i would like to speed up the process if at all possible.
!