Q6600 OC vs Q9450 OC

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: jaredpace
for overclocking:

q6600 > q9450

QFT

I don't think it is that clear-cut.

From what I have seen ( I have only a Q6600 @3.5GHz), it depends on what you want.

"easy" overclock (IMO, ~3.2 - 3.5Ghz) -> Get a Q9450....it will be cooler, don't need a lot of cooling, should be pretty easy to get on most decent motherboards. You aren't trying to max out your OC, just get an easy performance bump.

"hardcore" overclock (IMO, trying to max it out, maybe hit 4GHz or close to it) -> Get a Q6600, the higher multi will help, can use a bit more voltage, but will need more expensive cooling (high end air or water).

I think it depends on what you want to do and how much time you want to spend on it.

 

[Markfw]

Well, I have a $200 motherboard, PC-8500 memory, and WAS using an XP90 cooler. Barely holding a 3.5 GHZ OC, and running 70c. So I had to get a TRUE to cool it down.

On the other hand, I have several Q6600's, some on $60 used 965-S3 motherboards, one on a DS3R @3.5, and it was on an XP90, and also ran 70c until I got new cooling.

I speak from Experience, they are harder to OC due to the higher FSB, which requires better components. And they aren't that much cooler OC'ed.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

I speak from Experience, they are harder to OC due to the higher FSB, which requires better components. And they aren't that much cooler OC'ed.

YES this is so true yet no one understands why.

Reason is, if your pushing 1.4v on your chip to get X overclock. Thats almost the same amount of heat generated by both chips. Now problem is the 45nm die is smaller then 65nm dies.

So you got the same heat pumping out of a smaller footprint.

This in turn can be more dangerous because now its harder to cool down cuz you have less surface area of contact.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I posted to windows with no problem at 3.704 and 1.40 vcore but couldn't pass prime even at 1.41 so backed it down. How many people on just an ip35 pro can post over 3.6 on Q6600?

We'll see if my x3350 is just a fluke or not when my Q9450 arrives in a few days. That one is going into an ip35e but will at least have an antec 900 to keep it cool

How was your temps? And what was your voltage?

I dont recomend the ip35-e. Seriously, do yourself the justice bryan and bite the bill on a high end board for once.

The dfi LT p35-T2R is my first recomendation. I bet you, when you try out that board, your gonna think youve gotten a new chip.

yeah, well, I was originally planning for a Q6600 at 3.0-3.2. It has kinda snowballed on me from there...

I would prefer to get in on that ip35 pro deal at newegg for $99AR, but I've already opened up the ip35 e. I originally only planned for 3.0-3.2 out of this cpu, so hopefully that mobo will work ok for it...if not then I'll just pass it down to mom and buy something else.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Markfw900

I speak from Experience, they are harder to OC due to the higher FSB, which requires better components. And they aren't that much cooler OC'ed.

YES this is so true yet no one understands why.

Reason is, if your pushing 1.4v on your chip to get X overclock. Thats almost the same amount of heat generated by both chips. Now problem is the 45nm die is smaller then 65nm dies.

So you got the same heat pumping out of a smaller footprint.

This in turn can be more dangerous because now its harder to cool down cuz you have less surface area of contact.

I wish that I had a Q6600 to compare to my X3350. Mark, I really think that you just got a bad cpu. Either that or the ip35 pro is a better board for quads than I thought...