Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

q9550 vs q6600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 5, 2008 12:45:02 AM

for gaming, do you guys think that the q9550 is worth the extra money?

i would wait for core i7 but my computer died today (seems to be a mobo problem)

More about : q9550 q6600

September 5, 2008 12:55:17 AM

E0 stepping for overclocking is good and worth it, as long as you have a fsb system that can run it.

a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 12:55:24 AM

Go with the Q6600 if you are going to overclock it over 3.0, the Q9550 if you run stock or will only OC in the future.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 1:03:26 AM

q6600 and oc
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 5, 2008 2:31:01 AM

no

go q9550 and overclock...

i've said this many times... the penryn (yorkfield) architecture is about 10 % faster than kentsfield... and the multiplier on the q9550 is 8.5 and the q6600 is 9

so a 400 fsb on a q9550 is equal to 3.4 ghz... on a q6600 thats 3.6 ghz

so since the yorkfield is faster by lets say 10 %.... you can multiply the frequency by 1.1 .... 3.4 multiplied by 1.1 is 3.74

also the q9550 runs cooler...

its just simply better

unless price is a factor in which case the q6600 MAY be the best option for you
September 5, 2008 2:52:04 AM

Quote:
no

go q9550 and overclock...

i've said this many times... the penryn (yorkfield) architecture is about 10 % faster than kentsfield... and the multiplier on the q9550 is 8.5 and the q6600 is 9

so a 400 fsb on a q9550 is equal to 3.4 ghz... on a q6600 thats 3.6 ghz

so since the yorkfield is faster by lets say 10 %.... you can multiply the frequency by 1.1 .... 3.4 multiplied by 1.1 is 3.74

also the q9550 runs cooler...

its just simply better

unless price is a factor in which case the q6600 MAY be the best option for you


If price is a factor q6600 is definitely the best option, given the $180-$340 difference (newegg price) means a $160 price gap, you can almost get 2 q6600 for one q9550.

For overclocking:
The 8.5 vs 9 multiplier difference is not significant unless it's for extreme oc. q9550 produce less heat due to smaller 45nm process, allowing it to oc higher than q6600 if cooling is limited. q6600 tolerates much higher vcore (Intel's official recommended vcore is up to 1.5v, where q9550 will burn out, even if kept ice cold), allowing it to oc higher than q9550 if giving enough cooling.

The 10% performance per ghz performance is with encoding averaged in. For gaming, it's far less than 10%, sometimes even zero. The 2 chips share identical architecture, the Yorkfield die shrink gives no performance gain in itself. Its larger L2 cache plus sse4 instruction makes up the difference. Only the newest encoding and professional programs benefits from sse4. Larger L2 cache is more useful, but already at a large 12mb, additional performance gain is small due to scaling, as typical tasks don't need so much. It's similar to having 4gb vs 8gb of ram.

If the rig is for encoding, q9550 may be worth the extra, as some benchmarks of sse4 enabled encoders show as much as 30% gain at the same clock rate.

If it's for gaming, it's not worth it, get q6600 and spend the difference on video card.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 5, 2008 3:46:06 AM

Dagger, very nice post, thank you. Here's a trophy for you. [:turpit:2]


I've said this before: Intel have shot themselves in the foot with the Q6600. It's so good, it makes it hard to sell the newer stuff that came after it. I bet they never expected that :) 
September 5, 2008 3:47:22 AM

well i already have a video card(8800gt). and from what i read, putting 2 together in sli is kind of a waste

i'd probably just spend the difference on actual games

thanks for the input guys. i think i'm going with the q6600. i don't mind paying 150ish more for more fps but if the difference is tiny then it's kind of a waste.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 5, 2008 4:03:44 AM

8800GT SLI is not a waste. That is, if you have a 20" monitor or bigger, and your MB/PSU already support SLI, then you only need to spend $120 for the second card, and you get some massive increases in fps.

Watch this for example:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/734/8/
1920x1200, World in Conflict, DX 10 mode.
9800GX2 gets 40 fps (pretty good IMO)
9800GTX+ gets 24 fps (weak)
The 9800GX2 is very close to 8800GT SLI, while the 9800GTX+ is close to a single 8800GT.

I'm sure you can find reviews with 8800GT and 8800GT SLI if you google for them too. I just picked the first video card review in my bookmarks because it's past midnight here and I got to work tomorrow.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 5, 2008 4:09:46 AM

aevm said:
Dagger, very nice post, thank you. Here's a trophy for you. [:turpit:2]


I've said this before: Intel have shot themselves in the foot with the Q6600. It's so good, it makes it hard to sell the newer stuff that came after it. I bet they never expected that :) 

I would say the 9550 is worth it for very CPU intensive stuff - it's a great CPU. My friend just got one, and I was stunned to see it running flat out on 1.08v - it's great for running cool and very low power, while still flattening a stock 6600. It's true that it isn't that much faster overclocked than the 6600 is (though it still maintains an advantage), but depending on the application, it should definitely be considered. Of course, the applications in question for my friend were Matlab and Solidworks, not games.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 5, 2008 4:13:19 AM

Well, OK, and then you have corporations that don't even allow overclocking, for various reasons (stability, legal, time spent messing with BIOS and testing). For them the Q9550 is better, IMO. For example my own IT guy refuses to overclock or to let me overclock, so they got me a Q6700. That was when a Q6700 used to cost twice as much as a Q6600 :) 

a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 4:35:24 AM

Unless you have the extra money to throw around, go for the Q6600. If you do have the extra money then buy the Q6600 and paypal to me the difference and I will get a 2nd Q6600 to go into my media center pc.

Deal? ;) 

September 5, 2008 4:50:47 AM

err.. right

onto motherboards. can you guys recommend one to me? it's pretty hard to decide, there are so many choices

i like asus but i'm okay with using other brands. i'd like to keep it under 150 but i could go a little over if it's worth it.

a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 4:51:37 AM

I would go with Gigabyte if not ASUS...
September 5, 2008 5:08:07 AM

don't leave out ASrock they're starting to come up in quality.
September 5, 2008 5:09:56 AM

Hi
i myself have just purchased a Q6000 and a gigabyte P35 board with a cheap palit 2400 HD series with 4 gb(800 Mhz ) ram and its giving a good performance as per the price.I wolud really say not to waste money on the cpu for 10+ fps advantage.Just give the difference to the GPU or a games.Gigabyte board's are also nice better than the ASUS current series

;) 
September 5, 2008 5:21:53 AM

wow, there are a lot of asus ang gigabyte boards. what else should i look for in a board?
September 5, 2008 6:21:21 AM

Heh.. I'd recommend the DFI P35 DK. It's pretty nice, works great for my needs.

DFI LANPARTY DK P35-T2RS LGA 775 Intel P35

But if your tring to make ends meet on a budget, the other recommended MBs are fine. Also if your looking for SLI, the only option on these non-sli MBs are the X2 GPUs, which some day I might get the 4870 X2... Just so I can use the extra power cords dangling in my PC case. :oops: 
September 5, 2008 6:39:17 AM

i guess i trust the asus name more than DFI. i haven't really heard of dfi until today
September 5, 2008 6:54:07 AM

Then what are you waiting for? Just get the Asus. :p 
September 5, 2008 6:57:51 AM

lol, well i've at least heard of gigabyte


plus there are a lot of asus boards to choose from,
September 5, 2008 7:03:00 AM

Here:

DFI Infinity P35 Blood-Iron Overclocking Test

That's basically the older version when the P35 chipset came about. That review was based on the Q6700. It just offers allot more options when OC'ing.

It's basically a nice MB for Non-Sli.
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 7:30:43 AM


Hey the cheapest option is to go for the Q6600 get a reasonable board. Gigabyte P35 -DSR3 chipset will do and wait for the i7

Over clock it to 3 GHZ by uprating the FSB to 333MHz and enjoy...

a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 12:11:17 PM

DFI was a good brand, probably still is. For some reason I dont see many of those boards available at Microcenter or Frys Electronics but they dont mind carrying ECS which is beyond me...
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2008 12:30:08 PM

My Asus P5K-e Wifi is stable as anything at huge FSB speeds.

Definitely go P35 and check how OCable any boards you think of are, might also be worth researching the BIOS options for usability and thoroughness.

After that I guess it's down to features and price.
September 5, 2008 12:32:15 PM

Why p35? It's being replaced by p45 and going out of production. Get p45 instead, around the same price, better performance, 1600mhz fsb native, pcie2.0. Brand don't matter as much as chipset, it's the heart of any motherboard.
September 5, 2008 1:32:31 PM

Q6600 for the processor - Overclockablity | Price
750 quad PC Power & Cooling PSU - 60+amps on the single 12V rail

I have my computer in a closet with no fresh air circulation and run a 35ft vga to a monitor and another long HDMI to the TV. Point is that the PSU and CPU absolutely bake in there it's so hot - just touching the outside case feels very uncomfortable - and have performed flawlessly for over 1 year now without any issue. I can't overclock because my temps are so high.. but you get the point.

I wouldn't approach I7 till they get their $#!+ together. Like the guys are saying a simple P35 or 680i / 750 quad / q6600 / 4g 1066 / Velociraptor should put you in a great position for around $800.

If you want to seriously game then the 4870X2 should do it, put everything on XP 32, keep all your media in a flash drive or stored remotely (protect yourself from the big bad wolf.)

The unimpressive sales numbers of Crysis has all the developers concerned engine optimization. Safe assumption is that games for at least the next 2 years won't run as heavy as Crysis and so there's your window.

Cheers..


September 5, 2008 2:05:20 PM

Buy Asus P45, which ever of the P5Q boards suits your needs. PQ5 boards overclock like CRAZY!

Sell your 8800GT and buy a ATI card. 4870 or higher.
September 5, 2008 2:09:37 PM

dagger said:
Why p35? It's being replaced by p45 and going out of production. Get p45 instead, around the same price, better performance, 1600mhz fsb native, pcie2.0. Brand don't matter as much as chipset, it's the heart of any motherboard.


It really didn't make sense for me to get the P45 when OC isn't going to be different when sticking with the same Q6600. Now there might be a lil difference with the 45nm quads, but I don't think I'll be planning to upgrade to a yorkie. I'm currently running a rated FSB at 1600. Though my OC was simple, it was kind of a pain to tune in the right amount of voltage. And what I mean by pain, redoing tests over a 8 hour period, when the test was already 2-4 hours into it and basically failed or blue screened. (using speed step as well)

However, I didn't see anything that a reg old Q6xxx would OC better on a P45.

I don't plan on running 2 video cards, but the 4780 X2 does look temping, although I don't think I wanna spend 560 bucks on it.

Also, P45 MB support DDR3 the price is just plain outrageous.

Edit:

Note, not saying all P45's.. just the ones that do.

Edit:

BTW, does or has anyone seen a difference with the PCI-E 2.0? I never did take a look around on the main difference on that.

Edit:

Well.. I took the time to read about the PCI-E 2.0, and what I read tells me the only way you benefit from it, is on a SLI/CF platform when you use 2 video cards...
September 5, 2008 2:16:51 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
Buy Asus P45, which ever of the P5Q boards suits your needs. PQ5 boards overclock like CRAZY!

Sell your 8800GT and buy a ATI card. 4870 or higher.

+1 for P45 and P5Q. If you are not going to crossfire P5Q with P45 is a great choice and it OC's very well. Good FSB, PCIE 2.0, and lots of other features edges out most any P35 choice. And even if you want to crossfire down the road the're a 1/2 dozen P5Q*'s that will do it.
September 5, 2008 8:04:55 PM

dragonsprayer said:
E0 stepping for overclocking is good and worth it, as long as you have a fsb system that can run it.


What exactly is the E0 stepping? I've been hearing about it on other forums and the like but haven't exactly found a place that outright explained the difference between the versions. Care to help?
September 5, 2008 8:41:14 PM

so my friends talked me into the e8500. apparently in practice it's a bit faster than the q6600 especially after you overclock it. and they don't think games will perform faster on a lower clocked quad core like the q6600 since most games only use 2.

even games that use all 4 cores like crysis just don't keep up.

and i think i'll pick up the asus P5Q mobo.

quick question, do you guys think the deluxe version is worth it? because the p5q-e looks pretty good.

as for graphics cards, i'll probably wait at least another year before replacing the 8800gt.
September 6, 2008 11:35:05 AM

Nothing wrong with the e8500, but the overclocked Q6600 would have been fine too. I've posted many links in the endless discussions on this showing a 3.6GHz Quad matching or beating a 4.0GHz dual. But, Either a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz or higher or a stock or overclocked e8400/e8500 are all excellent for gaming and you'll be typically be GPU limited at at max playable settings. ( edit: for sure a single 8800GT will be the weak link at mid resolutions and up). Anyway, I doubt either CPU would have disappointed you for gaming as long as you are willing to overclock the Q6600.

I disagree a second 8800GT is a waste though; far from it. If you had a 650i/680i or 750i/780i mobo already, a second 8800GT would have been the way to go. Look over all the games in this review and you'll see 8800GT SLI typically hangs with the GTX280 and is above the HD4870 and GTX260. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=13
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 6, 2008 10:21:03 PM

geeeeoffff1 said:

and i think i'll pick up the asus P5Q mobo.

quick question, do you guys think the deluxe version is worth it? because the p5q-e looks pretty good.


Between those two, I'd pick the P5Q-E. There's also the P5Q Pro, usually cheaper than P5Q-E. Compare features and then pick.

The P5Q Deluxe is nice, but some coolers (e.g. Freezer 7 Pro) won't fit because of some cooling pipes. Also, it's almost the same price as the P5E Deluxe, which can do Crossfire at full 16x speed and IMO is a better deal.

September 6, 2008 10:47:56 PM

3.6 GHz is wishful thinking. Remember, not all q6600s are able to get to that clock speed. Mine can only do 3.0 GHz prime stable and it is GO stepping. Unless you are going to RMA until you get one of the "good" q6600, the q9550 may be worth it.

I will most likely be upgrading to the q9550 if/when the price drops from the Nehalem release.
September 6, 2008 11:05:59 PM

blackwater11 said:
Q6600 for the processor - Overclockablity | Price
750 quad PC Power & Cooling PSU - 60+amps on the single 12V rail

I have my computer in a closet with no fresh air circulation and run a 35ft vga to a monitor and another long HDMI to the TV. Point is that the PSU and CPU absolutely bake in there it's so hot - just touching the outside case feels very uncomfortable - and have performed flawlessly for over 1 year now without any issue. I can't overclock because my temps are so high.. but you get the point.

I wouldn't approach I7 till they get their $#!+ together. Like the guys are saying a simple P35 or 680i / 750 quad / q6600 / 4g 1066 / Velociraptor should put you in a great position for around $800.

If you want to seriously game then the 4870X2 should do it, put everything on XP 32, keep all your media in a flash drive or stored remotely (protect yourself from the big bad wolf.)

The unimpressive sales numbers of Crysis has all the developers concerned engine optimization. Safe assumption is that games for at least the next 2 years won't run as heavy as Crysis and so there's your window.

Cheers..



Wow....so much information that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, and it is horrible advice!

Nvidia chipsets (680i) = absolutely not, unstable and overclocking issues.
1066 MHz RAM = NO! Tends to be unstable and very little benefit over 800 MHz RAM
Velociraptor = Very unnecessary when you can get a WD6400AAKS
Why on earth would you put your computer in a closet with no circulation?
Why would you store data for a personal computer remotely? Seems like unnecessary hassle and no benefit for an individual.
4870X2 is way overkill for gaming right now. You also need a 30 inch monitor to even use it's real benefit. Get a 4850, definitely best value.
Why XP 32? I have never come across any issue using 64 OS, there is pretty good support for them now. Even Vista Home Premium is great now with SP 1. Get at least XP 64.
September 7, 2008 12:05:57 AM

That stinks yours OC's so bad. 3.0GHz max? What cooling are you using? Have you tried any voltage bumps at all? 3.6GHz is hardly uncommon, even on air. Some here on liquid are over 4.0GHz.

I ran mine @ 3.15GHz on the stock retail fan with no bumps in voltage, and it still didn't crash in gaming. But temps were way too high for my liking(mid 60's) so I settled for 3.0GHz. With hot summer months and room temps the stock fan wasn't cutting it for my liking and I put in a freezer 7 pro. I am yet to try and see where I'll hit a wall with it. This is all in a quiet Sonata II case, which is the main reason I haven't bothered looking for a max OC....I just don't have the airflow & cooling in this system to make it worth bothering.
September 7, 2008 12:50:37 AM

njalterio said:
3.6 GHz is wishful thinking. Remember, not all q6600s are able to get to that clock speed. Mine can only do 3.0 GHz prime stable and it is GO stepping. Unless you are going to RMA until you get one of the "good" q6600, the q9550 may be worth it.

I will most likely be upgrading to the q9550 if/when the price drops from the Nehalem release.


3.6ghz is very easy on q6600. With 9x multiplier, set fsb to an even 1600mhz, for 800mhz ddr2 ram, everything matches perfectly. 1 minute oc. You didn't do it right.

Mine does 4ghz prime95 stable on air, just tuned it down because it's unnecessary.
September 7, 2008 2:38:10 AM

njalterio said:
Wow....so much information that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, and it is horrible advice!

<<Nvidia chipsets (680i) = absolutely not, unstable and overclocking issues.
1066 MHz RAM = NO! Tends to be unstable and very little benefit over 800 MHz RAM
Velociraptor = Very unnecessary when you can get a WD6400AAKS
Why on earth would you put your computer in a closet with no circulation?
Why would you store data for a personal computer remotely? Seems like unnecessary hassle and no benefit for an individual.
4870X2 is way overkill for gaming right now. You also need a 30 inch monitor to even use it's real benefit. Get a 4850, definitely best value.
Why XP 32? I have never come across any issue using 64 OS, there is pretty good support for them now. Even Vista Home Premium is great now with SP 1. Get at least XP 64.
>>

Really?

Blown away with how mundane your responses fit my suggestions and here's why.

The 680i A1 board from EVGA is a 4x customer choice award product with over 700 reviews over at newegg. Can clock to 1400fsb STABLE runs absolutely prestine with Crucial ballistix high density D9 ram @ 1000mhz @ 4-4-4-12 and in my case since I don't wish to hear the fans, is stuffed into a 3X3 closet and runs stable with temps that will help heat my house in the winter. "Absolutely not,???? Why because you're easily suckered into buying the next best thing?

1066RAM no good? Have a look - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
I notice at least 5% increase in 3Dmark06 scores compared to running it higher latency 5-5-5-15 @ 800.. Let me ask you something.. if you had the choice.. 400mhz ram or 800mhz ram? Higher is better period and though slight, 1066 RAM is still rated to handle more volts and more heat. (did you fall down the stairs as a child?)

Velociraptor no good - Have a look - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Have you looked at the seek demanding tests done in comparison to these two drives? (when you fell, did your head ricochet off the banister?)

Why would anyone store data remotely? mmm.. Should I have to even dignify that with a response or run you through the laundry list of reasons? I think I'll let you figure it out by yourself.

4870X2 is overkill for gaming?! We are just now beginning to see video cards keep up with engines such as the one Crysis is on. Physics requirements are going up and video cards are still not where they need to be. When was the last time a video card was an overkill? wtf? do you wear a padded helmet?

Why XP32 over vista.. well stop into your local CPU fix-it store and ask them how many issues they've had with their clients vista problems compared to XP? Are all games written for vista 64? In fact a handful are not so therein lies another horrendous recommendation.

????????
??njalterio??
????????

You like my picture frame?




September 7, 2008 3:31:08 AM

The others are more or less a matter of opinion, but 680i is definitely a bad idea for quad core. Search for "680i" and "q6600" in the forum search function, and you'll see just how many people can even manage to push a quad past 2.8ghz. Patchy fsb stability along with horrible vdroop. The chipset cannot handle quad core.
September 7, 2008 4:22:11 AM

3.2 stable on air is not what I would call incapable of handling quad core.
September 7, 2008 6:07:25 AM

dagger said:
3.6ghz is very easy on q6600. With 9x multiplier, set fsb to an even 1600mhz, for 800mhz ddr2 ram, everything matches perfectly. 1 minute oc. You didn't do it right.

Mine does 4ghz prime95 stable on air, just tuned it down because it's unnecessary.


Those are the right settings, but that is not the hard part.
Some q6600s require more voltage to be stable at those settings. It's not a question of "doing it right." Anyone can change a few settings in the BIOS. I assure you, I've done everything possible to get the best stable performance from my CPU.

I refuse to set my voltage higher than 1.45 volts. The risk of CPU failure to me is not worth that extra 600 MHz.
September 7, 2008 6:47:20 AM

blackwater11 said:
>>

Really?

Blown away with how mundane your responses fit my suggestions and here's why.

The 680i A1 board from EVGA is a 4x customer choice award product with over 700 reviews over at newegg. Can clock to 1400fsb STABLE runs absolutely prestine with Crucial ballistix high density D9 ram @ 1000mhz @ 4-4-4-12 and in my case since I don't wish to hear the fans, is stuffed into a 3X3 closet and runs stable with temps that will help heat my house in the winter. "Absolutely not,???? Why because you're easily suckered into buying the next best thing?

1066RAM no good? Have a look - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
I notice at least 5% increase in 3Dmark06 scores compared to running it higher latency 5-5-5-15 @ 800.. Let me ask you something.. if you had the choice.. 400mhz ram or 800mhz ram? Higher is better period and though slight, 1066 RAM is still rated to handle more volts and more heat. (did you fall down the stairs as a child?)

Velociraptor no good - Have a look - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Have you looked at the seek demanding tests done in comparison to these two drives? (when you fell, did your head ricochet off the banister?)

Why would anyone store data remotely? mmm.. Should I have to even dignify that with a response or run you through the laundry list of reasons? I think I'll let you figure it out by yourself.

4870X2 is overkill for gaming?! We are just now beginning to see video cards keep up with engines such as the one Crysis is on. Physics requirements are going up and video cards are still not where they need to be. When was the last time a video card was an overkill? wtf? do you wear a padded helmet?

Why XP32 over vista.. well stop into your local CPU fix-it store and ask them how many issues they've had with their clients vista problems compared to XP? Are all games written for vista 64? In fact a handful are not so therein lies another horrendous recommendation.

????????
??njalterio??
????????

You like my picture frame?


As dagger pointed out, there are plenty of reviews that point to poor overclocking capability of Nvidia chipsets. If you are going to use ATI video cards (as you suggest) why not get a P45 anyways? You are delusional if you think the 680i is the best motherboard. The next best thing to the 680i is nothing because everything else is better than it!

There are also many motherboards that have compatibility issues with 1066 RAM. I agree there is a very slight increase performance, but hardly worth the head aches of it not working correctly.

Sorry but the WD6400AAKS is way better in value than the Velociraptor. Yes the Velociraptor is faster, but not $200 faster. Check the benchmarks that Tom's has, the WD6400AAKS comes fairly close considering the price gap.

If you want to play Crysis, then by all means get a 4870X2. However if you are part of the vast majority who thinks Crysis blows (refer to lack of game sales), then a 4870X2 is not necessary. "Overkill" in a video card is defined as providing greater than 60 FPS in a game. For those of us not living in our parent's basement, 30 FPS is plenty. Refer to Tom's video card guide, the most graphics any sane person can really use is 4850 CF.

OK, I agree that not all games are playable in Vista. However, try wrapping that one track brain of yours around this one: NOT EVERYONE USES THEIR COMPUTER TO PLAY OLD COMPUTER GAMES! Last time I checked, the quality of an operating system is not based solely in it's ability to play games from 1997 and earlier. Also, you probably aren't aware of this feature Vista has called "Readyboost", which literally makes my boot time about two seconds. But I should still get a Velociraptor, right? Honestly, how many times do you perform file transfers over 100 GB?

Storing data remotely has its purposes, but not for a home personal computer! I can understand if a company wants to out source it's IT infrastructure, but is it really necessary for me to keep off site backup of music and picture files?
EDIT: Do you know what remote storage is?

Before insulting someone for disagreeing with you, why don't you go do a little research? Could it be that you do not know absolutely everything about computers and what is useful? Whether you agree with me or not this does not change the fact of my first statement that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POST! No one cares about your ass-backwards computer configuration. Next time, try showing some respect on the forums and stop being such a belligerent fool.
September 7, 2008 7:02:48 AM

pauldh said:
That stinks yours OC's so bad. 3.0GHz max? What cooling are you using? Have you tried any voltage bumps at all? 3.6GHz is hardly uncommon, even on air. Some here on liquid are over 4.0GHz.

I ran mine @ 3.15GHz on the stock retail fan with no bumps in voltage, and it still didn't crash in gaming. But temps were way too high for my liking(mid 60's) so I settled for 3.0GHz. With hot summer months and room temps the stock fan wasn't cutting it for my liking and I put in a freezer 7 pro. I am yet to try and see where I'll hit a wall with it. This is all in a quiet Sonata II case, which is the main reason I haven't bothered looking for a max OC....I just don't have the airflow & cooling in this system to make it worth bothering.


Yeah it does stink. I have been able to run at 3.4 GHz, but not prime stable. I have to run mine at 1.425 volts to be prime stable at 3.0 GHz. Cooling has never been an issue, I use a Zalman 9700, temps have remained in the upper thirties at idle overclocked and upper fifties when prime is running (all four cores). My VID is 1.325, which I think is where the issue lies. Not much seems to be known about this, but I've been reading that the lower the VID the more you can overclock. Most people have been saying that there q6600 has a VID of around 1.25.
September 7, 2008 1:38:20 PM

^Asus Maximus Extreme MB, eh?

My P6N Plat had problems OC to 3.1ghz, which is the older NV 650i. When I changed out the NB cooler, I was able to run 3.2ghz stable. But had some bad luck, and the NB cooler I installed cracked the 650i chip.

I'd say you might have a slight chance that the NB temps are holding you back. When the stock cooling was still used on my P6N, the NB was hitting 65C (with CPU full load, using IR thermometer on the NB HS) at my normal 2.880GHZ OC. So when I replace the NB cooler, when it ran stable, the NB was only getting 52C.

So if you could find away to get that NB cooler, you might be able to have a stable 3.4ghz since you've reached it. BTW, when I was running stable, I was able to tune down the vcore on my Q6600 down to 1.360. So I don't think you really need 1.4, but maybe 1.38 for it to be stable. (guessing of course for 3.4ghz).
September 7, 2008 1:59:51 PM

njalterio said:
Those are the right settings, but that is not the hard part.
Some q6600s require more voltage to be stable at those settings. It's not a question of "doing it right." Anyone can change a few settings in the BIOS. I assure you, I've done everything possible to get the best stable performance from my CPU.

I refuse to set my voltage higher than 1.45 volts. The risk of CPU failure to me is not worth that extra 600 MHz.


You have to keep in mind that q6600 can handle higher vcore than most other chips. The official "recommended vcore" for q6600 from Intel's website is up to 1.5v. Feel free to go there and check. You're perfectly safe at 1.45v. The voltage toleration is one of the reasons q6600 is popular with overclockers. Besides, I run a high 1.3125 vid q6600 at 3.6ghz on 1.45v, prime95 stable for 12 hrs. You just have to have a decent motherboard with low vdroop, something like p35/p45/x38/x48, and not 659i/680i.
September 8, 2008 5:01:22 AM

njalterio said:
As dagger pointed out, there are plenty of reviews that point to poor overclocking capability of Nvidia chipsets. If you are going to use ATI video cards (as you suggest) why not get a P45 anyways? You are delusional if you think the 680i is the best motherboard. The next best thing to the 680i is nothing because everything else is better than it!

There are also many motherboards that have compatibility issues with 1066 RAM. I agree there is a very slight increase performance, but hardly worth the head aches of it not working correctly.

Sorry but the WD6400AAKS is way better in value than the Velociraptor. Yes the Velociraptor is faster, but not $200 faster. Check the benchmarks that Tom's has, the WD6400AAKS comes fairly close considering the price gap.

If you want to play Crysis, then by all means get a 4870X2. However if you are part of the vast majority who thinks Crysis blows (refer to lack of game sales), then a 4870X2 is not necessary. "Overkill" in a video card is defined as providing greater than 60 FPS in a game. For those of us not living in our parent's basement, 30 FPS is plenty. Refer to Tom's video card guide, the most graphics any sane person can really use is 4850 CF.

OK, I agree that not all games are playable in Vista. However, try wrapping that one track brain of yours around this one: NOT EVERYONE USES THEIR COMPUTER TO PLAY OLD COMPUTER GAMES! Last time I checked, the quality of an operating system is not based solely in it's ability to play games from 1997 and earlier. Also, you probably aren't aware of this feature Vista has called "Readyboost", which literally makes my boot time about two seconds. But I should still get a Velociraptor, right? Honestly, how many times do you perform file transfers over 100 GB?

Storing data remotely has its purposes, but not for a home personal computer! I can understand if a company wants to out source it's IT infrastructure, but is it really necessary for me to keep off site backup of music and picture files?
EDIT: Do you know what remote storage is?

Before insulting someone for disagreeing with you, why don't you go do a little research? Could it be that you do not know absolutely everything about computers and what is useful? Whether you agree with me or not this does not change the fact of my first statement that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POST! No one cares about your ass-backwards computer configuration. Next time, try showing some respect on the forums and stop being such a belligerent fool.


Whoever said the 680i was the best motherboard? For a price / performance @ $179 for a fsb of 1400mhz ddr2 1200 board is not so bad at all.
Your reference to the Crysis game sales hurting because "the game blows" is asinine. The Crysis project failed because the system requirements were too high not because the game play was poor (except for the spaceship level towards the end) the game was very worth the $39.

<<NOT EVERYONE USES THEIR COMPUTER TO PLAY OLD COMPUTER GAMES!>> So you're saying that all new games are being written for Vista 64?! Are you retarded? Let me guess you're trying to convince yourself that your choice of going Vista 64 was the right one? In 2-3 years your Vista 64 will be the right answer but not yet.

Velociraptor not worth the money? Price / performance ratio I'll give you the WD, but only on a tight budget and assuming you're going RAID 0.

So let me sum up your theories: 1066 ram is no good / The velociraptor is not worth it / Any solution out there currently is better than a 680i board / the 4870X2 is overkill and storing your data off-site is unnecessary?

...

a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 8, 2008 5:46:38 AM

^How about we stop arguing and help the OP?

The 680i was a decent mobo but the nVidia chipsets compared to Intel chipsets do not perform as well and also do not OC as well. And technically the 680i is old.

We must also consider if he gets a ATI GPU. Will he want to go CF in the future? If so can't do it with a 680/780/790. Only a Intel based chipset supports CF.

Crysis was not worth the $39-$49 dollars. I played it and felt it lacked a good story and the overall gameplay just got boring. If you want great value then you have to go with the Orange Box. 5 games, including one of the most ground breaking series, for $40 bucks? Thats value.

Vista 64 is fine to play games. Almost every new game will run on Vista 64 without a problem. The main reason why most games 1997 and older cannot run on Vista OR XP (yes XP has the same problems with support) are 2 factors really. XP and Vista both use NTFS and most games written in 97 or earlier were based on FAT32 and 2 Vistas Kernal core is written differently than XP.

A good example of the firts part is the Die Hard Trilogy games. Try to install them on a XP or Vista machine and it will tell you it is not able to be played on a NTFS based machine.

Velociraptor is not worth the money unless money is not an object, much like the SSDs. And in HDDs I prefer Seagate over WD anyways.

1066RAM is good but normally RAM clocked higher than the JDEC Spec of 800MHz os only good if you plan on OCing the CPU. Other than that there is not a justifiable benefit to it at all.

As for the OP, The Q9550 is a great chip but is a bit pricier than the Q6600. Either chip will get you at least a 3.4GHz OC and both will run fast and cool, but the Q9550 will of course be cooler than the Q6600 by about 5-10c at most at the same clock speed.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2008 7:34:15 AM

jimmysmitty said:
^How about we stop arguing and help the OP?

The 680i was a decent mobo but the nVidia chipsets compared to Intel chipsets do not perform as well and also do not OC as well. And technically the 680i is old.

We must also consider if he gets a ATI GPU. Will he want to go CF in the future? If so can't do it with a 680/780/790. Only a Intel based chipset supports CF.

Crysis was not worth the $39-$49 dollars. I played it and felt it lacked a good story and the overall gameplay just got boring. If you want great value then you have to go with the Orange Box. 5 games, including one of the most ground breaking series, for $40 bucks? Thats value.

Vista 64 is fine to play games. Almost every new game will run on Vista 64 without a problem. The main reason why most games 1997 and older cannot run on Vista OR XP (yes XP has the same problems with support) are 2 factors really. XP and Vista both use NTFS and most games written in 97 or earlier were based on FAT32 and 2 Vistas Kernal core is written differently than XP.

A good example of the firts part is the Die Hard Trilogy games. Try to install them on a XP or Vista machine and it will tell you it is not able to be played on a NTFS based machine.

Velociraptor is not worth the money unless money is not an object, much like the SSDs. And in HDDs I prefer Seagate over WD anyways.

1066RAM is good but normally RAM clocked higher than the JDEC Spec of 800MHz os only good if you plan on OCing the CPU. Other than that there is not a justifiable benefit to it at all.

As for the OP, The Q9550 is a great chip but is a bit pricier than the Q6600. Either chip will get you at least a 3.4GHz OC and both will run fast and cool, but the Q9550 will of course be cooler than the Q6600 by about 5-10c at most at the same clock speed.


I was under the impression he wants a stop gap untill the i7 comes out...

Go for the Q6600 with a reasonable board. It will give you some money back for the new kit... All of the ram, psu, etc will have to proberly go anyway. And at least the Q6600 is not going to shoot your self in the foot price wise and ontop of that it aint a bad performer and its got loads of overclocking potential..
September 8, 2008 3:03:53 PM

Thank you - no reason to blow $250-$350 on a board when Nehalem is coming and definitely no reason to go Vista 64 unless you like taking in the rear from Microsoft and their security updates, software incompatibility issues especially with printers and all-in-ones.

The original comment was "4870X2 is overkill" There are thousands who enjoy playing Crysis for the physics gameplay as well for benchmarking their system and this is left for subjective opinion. Crysis was and is still the current benchmark for CPU / GPU configurations and many get the game to measure their system performance with so is a 4870X2 overkill? Absolutely not in fact it's not enough.

<<"1066RAM is good but normally RAM clocked higher than the JDEC Spec of 800MHz os only good if you plan on OCing the CPU. Other than that there is not a justifiable benefit to it at all." >> - So might as well get 800 mhz ram and shoot yourself in the foot in case you decide to overclock?

<<"We must also consider if he gets a ATI GPU. Will he want to go CF in the future? If so can't do it with a 680/780/790. Only a Intel based chipset supports CF.">> - Would you recommend CF or SLI to anyone? It is a marketing gimmick filled with driver issues and headaches / not every game is written for CF or SLI / When CF or SLI is configured, you can only use one output / In six months the 2 X 280GTX you just blew a $1000 on, were just outdone by the next single card configuration / Not to mention the heat issues that typically arise with CF or SLI.

!