Now that the Q6700 is basically the Q6600's old price, which would you go for? I'm thinking of upgrading to one of these soon, the Q9450 won't see a price drop for a long time I'm sure, and the 10x multi is attractive. If someone has a reason for me to get the Q6600 or Q9450 instead, please post. Even though this might not look like a factor, I'll most likely being ram limited at around 450FSB.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention, the newer 45nm chips also have a slower cache (but more of it to compensate)
Message edited by monst0r on 06-16-2008 at 02:08:48 AM
45nm runs much cooler and seems to oc better without an incrase to VID. I'm at 3.2 without a single tweak to any voltage. Can't say how good the Q6*00 is before increasing voltage maybe someone with experience can chime in for you on that one. 45nm also runs faster clock for clock than 65nm chips.
The Q6700 has dropped enough in price that for a person who is making a new build and doesn't have a lot of money, its a great choice. The Q9450 has been a bit disappointing from what I've seen so far, at least in the overclocking arena. The Q9550 beats is soundly, but cost a bunch more. For budget builders, I think the Q6700 is a great buy right now.
True indeed, but is that extra multiplier really necessary? Most motherboards can do 450Mhz these days, and 450 x 9 = 4050Mhz, which I'm assuming not many people do. Thus, save a little and go for the Q6600.
However, there is OCing to consider. Does the Q6700 OC better than the Q6600? According to Lupi, he said the Q6700 has a better chance at 3.8GHz, so it all boils down the the OP.
--------------- "Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman
The Q6700 has dropped enough in price that for a person who is making a new build and doesn't have a lot of money, its a great choice. The Q9450 has been a bit disappointing from what I've seen so far, at least in the overclocking arena. The Q9550 beats is soundly, but cost a bunch more. For budget builders, I think the Q6700 is a great buy right now.
Right, except I would be upgrading my current E6300 (keep that in mind). The Q9xxx series I'm sure will eventually be the same value items as the Q6xxx series, but that will be later than my time frame (before September hopefully :S)
Quote :
True indeed, but is that extra multiplier really necessary? Most motherboards can do 450Mhz these days, and 450 x 9 = 4050Mhz, which I'm assuming not many people do. Thus, save a little and go for the Q6600.
However, there is OCing to consider. Does the Q6700 OC better than the Q6600? According to Lupi, he said the Q6700 has a better chance at 3.8GHz, so it all boils down the the OP.
This is true, but for 24/7 operation (and having 2 sticks of budget ram that need 2.1v for >800MHz), I would like to leave the FSB around 400 or less (It's 400 right now ). For a realistic number I'm trying to pull off, I would like about 3.6-3.8GHz. Keep in mind I do have a TRUE, and some sexy arse cooling in general ;].
P.S. If anyone has any advice on where to fine low VID CPUs, please do share
The VID is the "stock" vCore for each chip, and it varies from chip to chip based on Intel's testing procedures. The VID will tell the motherboard: "This is the voltage I require at stock speeds when the VCore setting is on 'Auto' for proper operation." Nothing more. It is said that a lower VID value will yield better overclocks, but nothing's been conclusively proven.
If anyone can share ANYWHERE that lower VID=more oc, I'd love to see it..... but from where I stand it all is just a tube made myth.
i got my q6700 to 3.2ghz with no voltage increases whatsoever......and this was on one of the first versions when it first came out....still 0 stepping.....
---------------
"Since the dawn of time, man has dreamed of blotting out the Sun." - J. Montgomery Burns
Well... reading ALL of the OCing threads/boards, it seems fairly apparent that there is (at the very least) a loose correlation between the documented VID and the ability to OC a CPU.
A low VID doesn't guarantee 3.6, 3.8, 4.1, etc. because there are many other factors that come into play as well? RAM, MB, Cooling, etc...
Your best bet, is to look at xtremesystems.org, they have a Q6600 overclocking thread there, and most ppl, list what batch they got and what the VID was.
Your best bet, is to look at xtremesystems.org, they have a Q6600 overclocking thread there, and most ppl, list what batch they got and what the VID was.
Sorry, I meant that OEM chips have a "better" chance at being low VID, because intel MAY not have rooted through the low VIDs and re branded them a higher speed.
IE... OEM's may have purchased a bunch of the chips over a year ago. Since intel has just recently started doing the rummage through VID thing, if you get a chip that an OEM aquired a year ago, it may be better than all the 1.3000s that have been pouring out of retail Boxes, thats all.
After actually reading. It's quite simple. VID = The biggest OC boost. Believe it, you get much better OCs from low VIDs than high ones.
I am the one who did the research myself on 10 different chips. I know. I use my 1.2000 VID q6600 to bypass the natural noisy-ness of NVidia chipsets, as well as the Vdrop and droop.
Anyone else running 3.6 Ghz on an NVidia chipset with a q6600 at 1.312 Loaded?
You think a 1.3000 VID that needs 1.43 volts loaded is gonna OC better than the lower one?
I mean, read and use common sense! Look around you. All the trouble is from the high VIDs, because people are scared of Voltage! Not to mention the higher the VID, the more VCore needed, the more Heat it makes, the less efficient it becomes, it creates more interference within the chipset for supporting a higher VCore. (usually only seen on NVidia junk.)
So believe me, your VID will make alot of difference. I have plenty of processors that I have tested this on. 1.2000, 1.2500, 1.2625, 1.2750, 1.3000, 1.3125, 1.3250. That was my VID range from my testing on my chips.
And look at the other guys results... a OEM vs Retail. The OEM chip he has will reach 3.6 at 1.34 volts loaded!!
His other a.3250 will need 1.45ish. Owww!
See any difference? Now when you have a huge vdrop and droop, that Low VID will play GOD! Could you imagine what I would need on an NVidia chipset? I need 1.4000 to get 1.312 Loaded, with Droop disabled! It still has a .08ish VDrop!!!
If I had a 1.3000 VID chip, I'd need 1.5750 in the Bios to get my 1.43-.44 loaded!! And as you may not be aware, higher VCore causes other problems!
--Lupi
Message edited by Lupiron on 06-16-2008 at 11:17:20 PM
AIM: LordLupiron 
). For a realistic number I'm trying to pull off, I would like about 3.6-3.8GHz. Keep in mind I do have a TRUE, and some sexy arse cooling in general ;].