Why does everybody always go on about q6600?

It's because the G0 will OC to a minimum of 3.0 GHz and on average in the mid 3s. It's also cheap and beats the pants off just about anything in the price/performance sector when you overclock it.

If you can show me any consumer quad core that's currently available at 3.5ghz, i'll shoot myself.

And you don't even have to use a piece of strategically placed "something" (I forget what I ended up using) to block off one of the CPU's contacts so the OC works!!!

Well it's the first quad cpu under $300 and mine, not a G0 overclocks to 3GHz without pushing it to hard. Also it almost make Vista run ok.
I think my next build later this year will be a Phenom.
Oh man the Celeron 300A, by the time I got around to making a box with a Celeron in it the Abit BX6? dual cpu motherboard was out and I had a 1Ghz machine running NT4, and getting my internet from space.

Very true, but OCing is only for some people....
I don't do it, and don't really have any interest in it....
At work I have two boxes which are QX6850 based with 1066 RAM etc. There is no way I would buy Q6600 and OC them for that, so not strictly a fair competition....
I'd be willing to bet a QX6850 will have better results for me (high-quality decoding, rendering etc.) and spend less time doing it than a clock for clock Q6600. Yes, it won't be a massive difference, but time is money and I want it done quickly!
Personally if I were going for an Intel home machine, I'd go for an E6850 over the Q6600

Is this the G0 version?
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/show [...] =CP-161-IN

It does not say.

It is. SLACR. As to why?? For me, I got a couple, use them same as Lukebird. But as I am comfortable with tweaking my systems, got them clocked up over 40%. Performance wise makes them faster than the QX9650. Of course it takes some work to do and a good amount of stress testing to assure stability.

Lukebird...you are a good man! And a good man knows his limitations! Don't shoot yourself! My Q6600 runs 3.51 just fine, thank you. They are both Kentsfields so at the the same clock I doubt that there is a hair's worth of difference in performance if any. It is truly a shame that those QX6850 of yours are just idling around.

I've had a few poeple call me a SLACR. I usually punch their lights out.

Don't people ever check the names of products before they place them on the makretplace? There's a major brand of dog food called BARF. Back in Buffalo, NY there was a chain of insurnce companies called Swindle Insurance. Who the hell in thier right mind would call a top preforming CPU a SLACR?

It'd certainly be an interesting comparison.... QX6850 vs. Q6600.
They are work computers though, so I don't really want to start pissing around with them.
For quietness I specced them with mega after-market coolers, so I reckon they have a fair chance of hitting 4GHz....
If I knew how to overclock, I'd have a try, just for you guys
I guess I could probably bump it to 3.6 or so just on the multiplier at stock voltage.
As much of an AMD man that I am (not massively, but I like them) the QX for the sort of work that they do is mighty, mighty impressive. My friend is encoding HD video from our camera in Premiere Pro and it rips through stuff!

Check out the stickies! They helped me!

Hey, Dude! Say hi to the land of Beef On Weck for me willya! Especialy with a nice cold Genny on the side!

The Q6600 is cheap, it rocks, and it overclocks. Also, the later models don't justify the price increase/performance increaset ratio. (on the 65nm arena, on 45nm the history may-be/is different).