Typical overclocks?

[Preclude]

I was wondering what the typical overclocks are for the E8400 and the Q6600 (GO of course) an average overclock, not what you would consider mild, but not what you would consider extreme. A sort of middle of the road.

to make this more specific I will add conditions.

-good air cooling
-good but not godlike system components
-the area around the computer is air conditioned
-I want the system to last for 3 years.

thanks for taking the time to read.

 

[outlw6669]

I can vouch for the G0 Q6600. "Free" 3.0Ghz stock voltage overclock. I have mine watercooled @ 3.6Ghz, 1.55V with no problems. With a good air cooler you *should* be able to reach this. It can be pushed further but I have no real need.

 

[lameness]

On 3.2 ghz stock voltage with q6600. Max temps are about 55 c with thermalite 120. I could go higher and will if needed. Im sure 3.6 is possible.

 

[espslyxerx2]

E3110, the Xeon Equivalent to a E8400, its at 4.23 GHz with 1.375 V

Runs like a champ and I am sure this would pwnsauce any quadcore at 3.6 GHz

Its air cooled with a lapped TRUE.

 

[SirCrono]

I'd say the typical OCs are around 3.2 GHz for the Q6600 and 3.8 Ghz for the E8400 in the situation you described, although 3.6 for the Q6600 and 4.0 for the E8400 aren't that rare either.

espslyxerx 2 would that pwnsaucing be such in video encoding, photoshop, cad work and the likes? I think not.

 

[jsc]

I have a G0 Q6600 with a VID of 1.2625 volts - pretty good but not great. With stock HSF, it runs at 3.0 GHz with default voltage. It runs at 3.3 GHz at 1.30 volts with an ACF7P.

It runs at 3.6 GHz at 1.45 volts (drooping under load to 1.40 volts) with a lapped TRUE/S-Flex HSF. Core temps go to 60 - 65 C under Prime95 load.

 

[Craxbax]

Q6600 (SLARS) will do 3.2-3.4ghz very easily with just about any decent after market cooler. Not every one will do 3.6ghz on air. However 3.2 is plenty for just about anything you will ever do at present. Not all E8400s do 4.0+ghz but many will and if you are only gaming they would be a good choice. That said you won't be able to tell the difference gaming as video cards are much more important. For a build to last 3 years I would go with a quad as multi-threaded programs are the future. At sub $200 for a Q6600 it is hard to beat all that power and potential for the money.

 

[espslyxerx2]

I'd say the typical OCs are around 3.2 GHz for the Q6600 and 3.8 Ghz for the E8400 in the situation you described, although 3.6 for the Q6600 and 4.0 for the E8400 aren't that rare either.

espslyxerx 2 would that pwnsaucing be such in video encoding, photoshop, cad work and the likes? I think not.

We can play the naming game all, except my dual core list probably wouldn't fit in this box. Point being, Unless he is always using one of the programs you listed, a dual core will more then likely come out on top, which includes games.

I don't know why people pretend like they are future proofing with the quadcore's. The system you build now wont run games well in 3 years. Not to mention if your on this forum you will probably be updating your PC in the near future. Just my two cents.

 

[evongugg]

For gaming right now the e8400 beats the Q6600.
More and more applications are being built that take advantage of 4 cores.
Many believe that 4 cores will outdo 2 cores in the future.

 

[Craxbax]

I don't know why people pretend like they are future proofing with the quadcore's. The system you build now wont run games well in 3 years. Not to mention if your on this forum you will probably be updating your PC in the near future. Just my two cents.

Well, there are a lot of 2-3 year old cpus that play todays games just fine. The video card is still more important so your statement isn't accurate. Everyone from Intel on down has indicated that multicore/multithread systems and programs are the future and mhz is a dead end so do the math. The OP said he wants a system to last 3 years...the quad is a better choice and I would suggest he go to a q9450 if has the budget to get SSE4 if he wants it to last that long.

 

[dario77]

go with the q6600 and keep her around 3.2ghz. if you're really interested in keeping it alive for 3 years, try not to run this 24/7. perhaps your board supports dual bios...set up one with a very mild oc (around 2.8ghz) for day to day use (internet, general business apps), and the other with your more "adventurous" oc for gaming/photoshop/video encoding.

as for a quad built today not doing well on future games....just how well should one expect a dual-core built today to do on those future games? better than a quad? worse? why not just wait three years and build then??

just my 4 cents, since i'm voting quadcore...

 

[Aurora18]

you could also use passive cooling by putting the computer in a cool environment like a basement (if the basement is a completed one)

 

[JonathanDeane]

I read all the reviews on Newegg for the Q6600 (paying special attention to the low reviews, as few as they where....) and I would say go for the 6600

To add what others have said multi core everything is only going up from here, why go with 2 when you can get 4. Although wolfdale is tempting even in 2 core clothing.

 

[Preclude]

I swear, everytime a question is asked about these processors it becomes a vs war lol.

Thank you all who commented on this thread with your experiences.

I am putting a Q6600 in a build for a friend who loves to multitask.

 

[epsilon84]

I see a lot of Q6600s @ 3.6GHz and E8400s @ 4GHz, but if you want it to last for 3 years you may want to back off just a tad. Just keep an eye on the vcore, preferably stay under 1.4V for the Q6600 and 1.3V for the E8400 and you should* be fine.

*There are obviously no guarantees when overclocking, but modest increases to Vcore shoudn't decrease the lifespan of a CPU dramatically, as long as its cooled adequately.