Last message on previous page:
q6600 makes a great overclocker, 3.3 gigs stable on air with a artic pro 7, and all i did was increase the fsb. People who manage to kill this cpu are idiots, and should just sell all computer components they have, cuz there too stupid to own one.

^ True, but silicon degrades over extreme use over time and can 'die' quicker. I can't seem to find the article on Anandtech yet... Besides, he wants this to last for ages... at best a minor OC to 2.66Ghz. That would leave the lifespan almost untouched. Just make sure you monitor the temps and voltages... or wait a few years until it becomes expendable... then OC glory?

Currently I'm underclocking my Athlon X2 because I rarely ever max it out with work. It has more power than I need! By undervolting it, underclocking it and cooling it well, in theory it'll have a longer lifespan and if my uses change I'll clock it so. No point in wasting its lifespan.

Clocking is like running. In a silicon company the best 'runners' are clocked at how fast they can run without stopping. However the poorer 'runners' cannot do this are clocked slower. If you get a slower 'runner' to run faster it will tire out and 'die'. If you get a 'runner' to run slower than it needs then it will assume a 'walking' pace and will last alot longer. Now there are exceptions, such as the 'runner' running slower because it is too expensive for anyone to buy...

Silicon doesnt "degrade" over time period. Its like glass, its around for ages, were talking 100 years before you see a degredation of it. Now the metal in the processor is sure up to degredation, and quite quickly to temperature extremes.

^ Whatever...

Yeah your whatever isnt worth jack, and heres my qualifications, im a silicon crystal grower, i work for solar world, we make silicon crystals that are 155mm in length, and measure usually 1080mm long, we us the charkoszky method, and use cg6000 crystal growing machines, we have the ability to grow cpu grade silicon crystals, but currently only grow wafers grade for solar panels. I am also iso qualified, which is the international standards orginization. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Let's keep it simple. You do not need the "extra" computer power the quads will give you. Your needs (as you described) can be served by the E8400. One or two years from now, the current generation of quads and duals will be obsolete anyway. Just as long as you won't be engaging in power hungry games, enjoying games at decent resolutions, or plainly just the average computer user, average gamer, the E8400 with a decent GPU will do. enthusiasts will always say that "to enjoy the best computing experience, invest in the best equipment." that may be true, for the enthusiasts. But "best experience ' is relative. and for the average computer user, it may not necessarily mean the most expensive or the most high performing computer. My two cents.

^ Not when the next step is $20...

Well thanks everyone. I bought the Q6600. Is it better than the E8400? I don't have a clue; but I'm loving this system.

Haven't given it much of a run as yet; but last night I was installing Office, converting my 1000 odd song onto itunes, while surfing the web and it ate it all up without a blip.

My only problem is getting my printer recognised - and that's a Vista issue.

try setting the settings to compatibility mode for Windows XP... I'm sure there's a guide somewhere on google!

For your needs, go with the E8400.

First of all, you honestly don't need four cores for what you will be doing - A single-core Celeron based on the Core2 microarchitecture running at 1.8 GHz would suit you just fine in fact.

Second, the E8400 is based on newer technology (45nm), so it uses less power and runs cooler (also because there are only two cores instead of four).

Also, the E8400 has a 333 MHz FSB, which is better than the q6600's.

Hi, I am using 1280 x 1024 resolution with 0 AA and 16x AF and everything on as high as it goes.

I didn't say q6600 is not a good overclocker cpu. I said i know ppl who killed their cpu (who most are idiots indeed like u said), but there's also a problem with reaching certain given frequencies without going over the max vcore and without reaching very hot temperatures.
I guess anyone can reach 3.2ghz on their q6600 easily, the problem is beyond that limit. Actually i heard almost all q6600's reach ~3 ghz without modifying the vcore, which is great. Above 3 ghz u need 0.1 more to vcore to get 3.2-3.4, and it keeps growing pretty fast till 3.6-3.8ghz. Although you should still be below the maximum vcore for a G0 q6600 (1.5 vcore i think), it will get kinda hot really fast, not to mention eating power from your psu like crazy when under full load.
My friend has a q6600 and we had some fun oc'ing it. We couldn't get past 3.4ghz stable @ 1.5 vcore, so you see, it still depends on each and every cpu. I'm sure i remember even anandtech mentioning that oc'ers shouldn't go past 1.375 vcore for e8xxx and 1.475 for g0 q6600, which are considered safe limits. Of course most of the powerhouse oc'ers won't stop there, but for those of us who have "bills to pay", and want a 24/7 stable working cpu, without ever getting worried our cpu might die tommorow and we'll have to spend another 300 bucks to buy a new one, that's not viable.

Anyway gz for your purchase Grogger Go , you'll love your q6600 for a good period of time. If you do some oc'ing or benchmarks post some screenshots for us to enjoy

I can accept that, although to get my 3.3 gigs i didnt have to modify my voltage, must be luck of the draw.

I've used a variety of 65nm and 45nm dual and quad cores, high and low frequency. And I can, without a doubt, say ALWAYS go for the quad core. At $199.99 for the Q6600, you have no excuse not to pick one up.

And who gives a **** if you decrease your usability for CPU from 10 years to 8 years? Who here is using a mid-range computer from 1998? Which of those people plays games on it? Or even runs iTunes on it? Or really anything else?

Overclock your CPU and use it to its full extent and then get a new one when you'll need it anyways. And don't anybody tell me that you'll never need another processor after you buy one today.

PS- The lifetime of the CPU may shorten by a meaningless bit, but the performance stays the same until the second the processor dies. So I see no reason not to overclock.

Get the processor you will like without an OC. If you can OC it all the better. I have both the Q6600 and the E8400.

The Q6600 was very hot with the stock cooler(>50C idle, 70-72c under load) and this particular one doesn't OC worth a $&%. So I ended up without a significant OC and with spending money on an aftermarket cooler . It is still a fine processor but you MAY get a sample that doesn't OC well.

Anyway my point is don't depend on an OC to give you the performance you need. Get something that will deliver the performance you need and any OC you get will be a bonus.

dave

Hehe Strove, you are also staring at a wall on almost the smallest resolution possible. I can go stare at a wall on my 2560x1600 and hit 400 FPS. My rig is an E8400 at 3.8GHz and SLI 8800GT.

My bro has a E8400 and a single 8800GT playing at 1280x1024 he has every single thing maxed in Conan too with flawless frames. I admit that it does look amazing above 50 FPS and maxed settings.

omg, 400 fps ????? is that on a 30 inch monitor 2560x1600?

I run DUO and Quad, some programs run mutli-core, I run 3 Duo and 2 Quad, I will take the quad, they run much better, My older Xeon Pentium 4 with hyper threading run better, smoothly than my DUO cores, Duo tend to freeze far more than Quad, and Xeons old hyper threading never freeze and they are 5 years old, they maybe slower, but don't show there age for middle of the road use with 8 to 15 programs running including palying 4 movies encoding and surfing all at the same time, etc
So, buy sone old 604 xeon cores, just kidding, Quad, only way