Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgraded E6750 to Q6600, a mistake?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 16, 2008 11:33:18 PM

Hi guys,

I recently upgraded my E6750 (selling on ebay) to a Q6600 G0. Why? Well, the E6750 would always hit 100% load while gaming along with background programs and services. My frame rates were okay but I knew the E6750 hit its maximum performance even though I overclocked it to 3.4Ghz.

I chose the Q6600 G0 because of its overclocking potential and attractive price. Right now I'm running the Q6600 at 3.4GHz gaming a little better than before with the E6750. My CPU load never reaches 100%.

I don't know if I should have waited for the new 45nm quadcores or not. It was delayed and the price for the Q9450 is expected around $350. I got my Q6600 for $274 shipping on Amazon. Besides the power efficiency and lower temps of the Q9450 and 7% increase clock for clock, I don't know if if its worth it to spend $80 more.

What do you think?
January 16, 2008 11:50:25 PM

If you're into overclocking your CPU, Q6600 is clearly a better choice. Although Q9450 has lower thermal profile and slightly higher IPC, it has only 7.5x multiplier. As a result, the highest OC you can ever get out of Q9450 is 3.3Ghz, while you can get a 3.6Ghz easily out of a Q6600.

The newest Yorkfields are terrible for overclocking. So if you are into overclocking the heck out of a CPU, either you have to spend the bucks to get the ones with higher multiplier (Q9550 w/ 8x maybe?), or stick with Kentsfield that has higher overclocking potential.
January 17, 2008 12:02:23 AM

yomamafor1 said:
If you're into overclocking your CPU, Q6600 is clearly a better choice. Although Q9450 has lower thermal profile and slightly higher IPC, it has only 7.5x multiplier. As a result, the highest OC you can ever get out of Q9450 is 3.3Ghz, while you can get a 3.6Ghz easily out of a Q6600.

The newest Yorkfields are terrible for overclocking. So if you are into overclocking the heck out of a CPU, either you have to spend the bucks to get the ones with higher multiplier (Q9550 w/ 8x maybe?), or stick with Kentsfield that has higher overclocking potential.


Thats what I heard from the new 45nm chips from Intel. Apparently, they catching on that more people are overclocking the heck out of the 65nm chips like the Q6600 which in many cases beats the QX9650 at stock speed. Now they're releasing chips with low multipliers so we can use them to their true potential. Then after AMD tries to catch up, they're release the chips with unlocked multipliers with new model numbers, WTF? Wouldn't you feel cheated if you bought a cpu with max multiplier of 7.5 for over $350 to get a max speed of 3.3GHZ? How bout the Q9550 for nearly $600?

I wanted the most bang for my buck and so far I believe the Q6600 provided me with it.
Related resources
January 17, 2008 12:32:59 AM

Agreed vagetaqtd.

I have a system based around the Q6600 and I don't regret it.
For the price and the overclockability it was the right move.

I wasn't aware of the new lower multiplier locks. Seems a bit sneaky.
I wouldn't wory about it. The Q6600 will last you a long time yet.
January 17, 2008 3:46:54 AM

I get the feeling we're going to see something like 4x multiplier in the future...
January 17, 2008 4:26:30 AM

^lol

that would be insult for cpu market stream.

@OP, if i was in ur place i wouldnt do such upgrade.
!