Q9550 or Q9650. But 505090 is correct. Especially if you are overclocking past, say, 3.2 GHz., The improvements just aren't worth it.
I have a Q6600 and a Q9550, both OC'd to 3.6 GHz. Except for video work where the Q9550 has a small edge, I cannot tell the difference between the two without benchmarking.
Your best upgrade would be a quality heat sink and a healthy overclock.
While both the Q9550 and Q9650 are somewhat faster and more overclockable than your Q6600, the cost of either will put you within spitting distance from a new i7/i5 build.
------------------------------If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside.
PSA
Reply to outlw6669
with a Q6600 @ 3.2 and a very strong GPU or SLi setup...
going to an OC'd I7 might make your FPS go from something like 55fps to 75fps
is there Really any point...?
You would have to be a Serious encoder or something to not want to wait the extra few minutes or so for your encodes to complete lol
I am sticking with my Q6600 @ up to 3.6GHz stable (run it at 3 for now) until my min fps value starts dipping too low.
Until then it does Not matter What CPU come out. Simple.