Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Q6600 Deactivated?

Q6600 Deactivated?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Q6600 Deactivated?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
daship   08-27-2009 at 04:21:06 AM
- 0 +

EOL, sold out, its not produced anymore.

Reply to daship
xaira   08-27-2009 at 04:39:38 AM
- 0 +

its old, how bout that?

------------------------------ "Envy is ignorance" - Henry Thoreau : Best quote ever.

http://www.pingtest.net/result/3022953.png
 Reply to xaira
wardy22   08-27-2009 at 04:42:17 AM
- 0 +

yeah i guess, whats the processor thats "replacing" it?

Reply to wardy22
abswindows7   08-27-2009 at 04:49:50 AM
- 0 +

I think it is the Q8XXX series, which has less cache. Q9XXX are way better !

Reply to abswindows7
xaira   08-27-2009 at 05:06:42 AM
- 0 +

^+1

------------------------------ "Envy is ignorance" - Henry Thoreau : Best quote ever.

http://www.pingtest.net/result/3022953.png
 Reply to xaira
Bronze CPUs badge cjl   08-27-2009 at 05:11:23 AM
- 0 +

How about this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115131

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
 Reply to cjl
Bronze CPUs badge jsc   08-27-2009 at 05:09:24 PM
- 0 +

Price and performance , the Q9400 is, if stock, a close match. But the Q9550 is a much better overclocker for not much more money.

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to jsc
zipzoomflyhigh   08-27-2009 at 05:13:46 PM
- 0 +

Hmm.....why would a 2.5 year old chip be deactivated.....is this really a question?

I picked up a Q6700 for $170, way cheaper than newegg was selling the Q6600. Google is your friend.


Message edited by zipzoomflyhigh on 08-27-2009 at 05:14:39 PM
Reply to zipzoomflyhigh
Bronze CPUs badge cjl   08-27-2009 at 05:26:03 PM
- 0 +

jsc wrote :

Price and performance , the Q9400 is, if stock, a close match. But the Q9550 is a much better overclocker for not much more money.


Does the 9400 not overclock well?

(I honestly haven't got a clue how well it overclocks - I assumed it was good, since the 9550 is great, but I have no personal experience with the chip)

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
 Reply to cjl
Shadow703793   08-27-2009 at 05:30:25 PM
- 0 +

^+1. I too would like to know the Q9400 OCing ability. I'm guessing that 8x multi is a bit of a limit?

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Shadow703793 on 08-27-2009 at 05:31:07 PM
------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
 Reply to Shadow703793
shortstuff_mt   08-27-2009 at 05:53:28 PM
- 0 +

Shadow703793 wrote :

I'm guessing that 8x multi is a bit of a limit?


That's exactly the problem with why the Q9400 doesn't overclock well. A lot of those quad cores had a hard time even getting to a 400FSB which means 3.2GHz would be the highest you could go with a 8x multiplier. The 9x multiplier on the Q6600 allowed it to get to 3.6GHz with the same FSB.

Quote :

Hmm.....why would a 2.5 year old chip be deactivated.....is this really a question?


LOL - I thought the same thing while reading the post. :)

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by shortstuff_mt on 08-27-2009 at 05:55:19 PM
Reply to shortstuff_mt
zipzoomflyhigh   08-27-2009 at 06:38:14 PM
- 0 +

I remember a maximum pc article "Showdown Q6600 vs Q9300".

They said even with a smaller cache, the Q9300 was the better overclocker and performer overall. It was a 790i ultra they were using though so maybe they were able to reach some really high fsb.

All I know is my Q6700 is unstable at anything above 3.15. (although I never tried above 1.45v) , this is on the same board that I was running a 1.86ghz E6300 at 3.45ghz at stock voltage.
Ive tried 8x, 9x, and 10x multipliers. Best I can get is 350x9 for 3.15 @ 1.35v, although my temps are just fine and I'm running my memory under spec.


Message edited by zipzoomflyhigh on 08-27-2009 at 06:47:00 PM
Reply to zipzoomflyhigh
Bronze CPUs badge cjl   08-28-2009 at 01:15:08 AM
- 0 +

shortstuff_mt wrote :

That's exactly the problem with why the Q9400 doesn't overclock well. A lot of those quad cores had a hard time even getting to a 400FSB which means 3.2GHz would be the highest you could go with a 8x multiplier. The 9x multiplier on the Q6600 allowed it to get to 3.6GHz with the same FSB.


LOL - I thought the same thing while reading the post. :)


I know the 9400 shouldn't be limited to 400FSB - my friend is running his 9550 at 3.7GHz and got there with very little effort, and that takes 436FSB.

------------------------------ Asus P6T deluxe
i7 965 @ 4.2GHz (200*21), 1.384V
12GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 CAS 7
 Reply to cjl
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Q6600 Deactivated?
Go to:

There are 635 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.271 seconds
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
  • 01:00 Conrad925 won the Freshman badge
  • 01:00 skythra won the Freshman badge
  • 01:00 Ckaz won the Freshman badge
  • 01:00 james59 won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 snarl won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 patlabor44 won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 Kiren won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 WookinPaNub won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 kwadams won the Uniformed badge
  • 21:57 brockh won the Sophmore badge