jesolo wrote:

smeezekitty wrote:

Eh? […]
Show full quote

havli wrote:

Q6600 default voltage is more like 1.25V... 1.3 would be too much.
Also overclocking to 3.6 GHz is not that easy - mine will only go up to 3.3 GHz. 🙁 http://hwbot.org/submission/2372173_havli_cin … %29_3.63_points

Eh?

The default voltage varies from chip to chip. Not all are created equal. 1.3 is definitely not too much either. Even 1.4V should be safe
My old E6700 used to run 3.0GHz with 100% stability at stock voltage (1.232V)

Had a quick look - the Q6600 is rated to go up to 1.5V. However, the lower you can go, the less heat is being generated, less power is being consumed and you probably will extend the life span of the CPU.

The CPU dosnt die from even 1.6V but the VRMs overheat and the voltage spikes to 2V, that is how a Kentsfield CPU die from "only" 1.6V (or even 1.5V) if the board isnt well cooled or has many power phases.

candle_86 wrote:

havli wrote:

Q6600 default voltage is more like 1.25V... 1.3 would be too much.
Also overclocking to 3.6 GHz is not that easy - mine will only go up to 3.3 GHz. 🙁 http://hwbot.org/submission/2372173_havli_cin … %29_3.63_points

every Q6600 GO or B3 I've owned ran at 1.3V reported by CPUz and Aida64. And thats strange, every q6600 G0 I've ever seen has hit at least 3.6, ive had a few to 4

Well all my Kentsfield CPUs can run at 3600, Im pretty sure all will load Windows XP and run some benchmarks using ~1.35V load voltage even. To run Windows 7 X64 100% stable is a another matter, sure all Kentsfield CPUs I own can do it but some needs too much voltage or are too hot running chips for it to be possible without a high end tower cooler or even water in one case. I do "only" own 3 Q6600, two G0 and a B3, the best of those 3 needs 1.45V load voltage to be 100% stable in Windows 7 x64 at 3.6.

smeezekitty wrote:

Eh? […]
Show full quote

Eh?

The default voltage varies from chip to chip. Not all are created equal. 1.3 is definitely not too much either. Even 1.4V should be safe
My old E6700 used to run 3.0GHz with 100% stability at stock voltage (1.232V)

-edit-

I looked it up on Intel's site and amazingly they say even 1.50V is safe: http://ark.intel.com/products/29765/Intel-Cor … Hz-1066-MHz-FSB

Yes, it varies, maybe I confused the Q6600 with my E6600 which has vid only 1.225.
I remember running my Q6600 @ 3GHz slightly undervolted and later @ 3,5GHz at 1.5V with better heatsink. This was a different Q6600 than on the screenshot... slightly better overclocker, but still average at best. Sold it in 2010.

havli wrote:

smeezekitty wrote:

Eh? […]
Show full quote

Eh?

The default voltage varies from chip to chip. Not all are created equal. 1.3 is definitely not too much either. Even 1.4V should be safe
My old E6700 used to run 3.0GHz with 100% stability at stock voltage (1.232V)

-edit-

I looked it up on Intel's site and amazingly they say even 1.50V is safe: http://ark.intel.com/products/29765/Intel-Cor … Hz-1066-MHz-FSB

Yes, it varies, maybe I confused the Q6600 with my E6600 which has vid only 1.225.
I remember running my Q6600 @ 3GHz slightly undervolted and later @ 3,5GHz at 1.5V with better heatsink. This was a different Q6600 than on the screenshot... slightly better overclocker, but still average at best. Sold it in 2010.

Both the Q6600 and the E6600 can be found with VIDs ranging from 1.2V all the way up to 1.35V, the extremes are rare though. On average the E6600 probably has a slightly lower VID.

I agree with Skyscraper on the Core 2 Quad if you're hoping to run a newer version of Windows and more multimedia applications. The E8400 is a newer 45nm chip, and will perform better in single-core applications as a result, but "overall" the Q6600 will probably be nicer even at stock.

Just out of curiosity - any reason we're confined to these two chips? There are faster 65nm quad-cores (e.g. QX6850) if you don't want to/can't OC the Q6600, and there are also 45nm quad-cores (e.g. Q9550) that will match the E8xxx series for single-threaded performance at the same/similar clocks, and offer the additional two cores for multi-tasking/multi-threaded applications. The 45nm chips also have somewhat lower power consumption than the 65nm models, and afaik if your board can support E8xxx, it can support Q9xxx.

obobskivich wrote:

Just out of curiosity - any reason we're confined to these two chips? There are faster 65nm quad-cores (e.g. QX6850) if you don't want to/can't OC the Q6600, and there are also 45nm quad-cores (e.g. Q9550) that will match the E8xxx series for single-threaded performance at the same/similar clocks, and offer the additional two cores for multi-tasking/multi-threaded applications. The 45nm chips also have somewhat lower power consumption than the 65nm models, and afaik if your board can support E8xxx, it can support Q9xxx.

The simple reason is that I currently have the E8400 and got the Q6600 for free from a friend (considering that the going rate on eBay is +/- $35 for one now, I can't complain).

Basically, what I was trying to establish (and some valuable input was provided), should I overclock the Q6600 to the same FSB as my E8400, whether it will then still be worthwhle swopping out the E8400 for the Q6600.
However, I agree that there are better 45nm chips (like the Q9550) which will yield much better performance but, I don't want to spend +/- $55 on a Q9550 now if I have a Q6600 to run at the same FSB as my E8400 and maybe yield slightly better performance.

Also, my motherboard is only rated to run at a maximum FSB of 1333 MHz (although it does support an overclocked 1600 MHz FSB but, I have no intention of exceeding it's standard specification).
Therefore, as I see it, if I can overclock the Q6600 to run at 1333 MHz FSB, it should yield performance exceeding that of the E8400 and come closer to the stock standard performance of a Q9550/Q9650. However, this is dependable on various factors (the type of applications I run, etc).

E8400 vs Q6600? Watch this entire LinusTechTips series, you'll love it !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1JA24KCAjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0j4DdOwXbI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEj3T77ovQ

jesolo wrote:

The simple reason is that I currently have the E8400 and got the Q6600 for free from a friend (considering that the going rate on eBay is +/- $35 for one now, I can't complain).

Oh I see. Can't knock free. 😀

Basically, what I was trying to establish (and some valuable input was provided), should I overclock the Q6600 to the same FSB a […]
Show full quote

Basically, what I was trying to establish (and some valuable input was provided), should I overclock the Q6600 to the same FSB as my E8400, whether it will then still be worthwhle swopping out the E8400 for the Q6600.
However, I agree that there are better 45nm chips (like the Q9550) which will yield much better performance but, I don't want to spend +/- $55 on a Q9550 now if I have a Q6600 to run at the same FSB as my E8400 and maybe yield slightly better performance.

Also, my motherboard is only rated to run at a maximum FSB of 1333 MHz (although it does support an overclocked 1600 MHz FSB but, I have no intention of exceeding it's standard specification).
Therefore, as I see it, if I can overclock the Q6600 to run at 1333 MHz FSB, it should yield performance exceeding that of the E8400 and come closer to the stock standard performance of a Q9550/Q9650. However, this is dependable on various factors (the type of applications I run, etc).

AFAIK only the X48 officially supports 1600FSB, which is as much to do with specs as with marketing (X48 is a binned X38, and one of the only "features" that it added was 1600FSB). I'm not sure if 1600FSB would be reasonable with Q6600 though (it'd certainly perform very well if it did though!). OC'd I think the 6600 would probably be the better bet, as others have said, and even if you ran it at stock I doubt the loss of single-thread performance would be that significant in day-to-day usage. 😊

Here's another vote for the Q6600. I'm currently running mine at 3GHz/1333FSB at stock voltage, using the relatively shitty Intel heatsink to boot! It was one of the easiest overclocks I've done, right up there with the Celeron 300A.

The Q6600 at 3GHz is a fine performer. With an SSD handling storage, it honestly feels as fast as a 4.5GHz i7 for most of the stuff I do on a day-to-day basis, not counting x264 encoding and gaming.

I also have a Q6600 G0. Rock stable at 3.0GHz with stock cooling and no voltage change. At the same clocks, the only advantage the E8400 has over the Q6600 is an extra instruction, the SSE4.1.

There is no sense in running a dual core when you already have a quad core that can be used in the same system. Q6600 is a fine overclocker, and you should be able to easily run it at the same FSB as your current E8400, which will equalize their performance in single/dual-threaded tasks, and of course you'll have two more cores to spare.

filipetolhuizen wrote:

I also have a Q6600 G0. Rock stable at 3.0GHz with stock cooling and no voltage change. At the same clocks, the only advantage the E8400 has over the Q6600 is an extra instruction, the SSE4.1.

And a bit more cache. 3GHz is good enough for the Q6600 and very very easy to attain. I'd prefer it over the E8400 these days.

Actually it's the Q6600 that has a little more total cache, 8MB compared to 6MB from the E8400. However, it's less per core.

filipetolhuizen wrote:

Actually it's the Q6600 that has a little more total cache, 8MB compared to 6MB from the E8400. However, it's less per core.

The Core 2 quad-cores are MCM designs - they're two dual-cores bonded on the same package. The 65nm chips have 4MB per dual-core, while the 45nm chips have 6MB. The 45nm chips have more cache, even if the Q6600 has "more" on paper, as the 6600's cache is not fully unified (its essentially the same thing as two dual-core chips on a 2P motherboard).

obobskivich wrote:

Oh I see. Can't knock free. :happy: […]
Show full quote

jesolo wrote:

The simple reason is that I currently have the E8400 and got the Q6600 for free from a friend (considering that the going rate on eBay is +/- $35 for one now, I can't complain).

Oh I see. Can't knock free. 😀

Basically, what I was trying to establish (and some valuable input was provided), should I overclock the Q6600 to the same FSB a […]
Show full quote

Basically, what I was trying to establish (and some valuable input was provided), should I overclock the Q6600 to the same FSB as my E8400, whether it will then still be worthwhle swopping out the E8400 for the Q6600.
However, I agree that there are better 45nm chips (like the Q9550) which will yield much better performance but, I don't want to spend +/- $55 on a Q9550 now if I have a Q6600 to run at the same FSB as my E8400 and maybe yield slightly better performance.

Also, my motherboard is only rated to run at a maximum FSB of 1333 MHz (although it does support an overclocked 1600 MHz FSB but, I have no intention of exceeding it's standard specification).
Therefore, as I see it, if I can overclock the Q6600 to run at 1333 MHz FSB, it should yield performance exceeding that of the E8400 and come closer to the stock standard performance of a Q9550/Q9650. However, this is dependable on various factors (the type of applications I run, etc).

790i also supports 1600mhz FSB, but every Chipset I've ran since about 2004 has PCI and PCIe locked permantaly at 33/100 so no risk about the bus being overspeed. Also even the 965p will support 1600mhz FSB, most of us ran our Q6600's on the 965P chipset just fine at 3600mhz.

AFAIK only the X48 officially supports 1600FSB, which is as much to do with specs as with marketing (X48 is a binned X38, and one of the only "features" that it added was 1600FSB). I'm not sure if 1600FSB would be reasonable with Q6600 though (it'd certainly perform very well if it did though!). OC'd I think the 6600 would probably be the better bet, as others have said, and even if you ran it at stock I doubt the loss of single-thread performance would be that significant in day-to-day usage. 😊

Well the real thing is , the q6600 was a quad and the e8400 was a dual.

Back in the day there were debates that neither one was faster due to different aps supporting quad core cpus , but that was 9 years ago. Today , most "GOOD" games and apps support quads so the lower clocked q6600 is usually faster then the e8400.

candle_86 wrote:

790i also supports 1600mhz FSB, but every Chipset I've ran since about 2004 has PCI and PCIe locked permantaly at 33/100 so no risk about the bus being overspeed. Also even the 965p will support 1600mhz FSB, most of us ran our Q6600's on the 965P chipset just fine at 3600mhz.

D'oh! Forgot about 790i. 😊

And yeah, I know there's plenty of non-X48 boards that run 1600FSB - lots of P45 and X38 boards "unofficially" supported it as an "OC mode" and it isn't surprising at all that good P965 boards could achieve it too. That was partially my point - that X48's "official support" is more marketing than anything else, as it was released to go along with the QX9770 and push DDR3.

What about a socket 771 to socket 775 mod?
I was in the same boat as you. E8400 / 4GB RAM / Radeon 4850 PCIe.
My problem was that I didnt want to spend 160 bucks on a Q9650.

So I went online and found out about this mod, ordered a quadcore xeon (E5450) for 30 dollars and it runs now stable at 1.2v @ 4x3GHz.
I also tried to overclock it and it works without a voltage rise up to 3.4GHZ 😀

My mainrig (2015):
Intel Xeon E5450 @ Socket 775
4GB A-Data Vitesta Extreme Edition
Zotac GTX 480 AMP!
Asus P5Q-E

Good luck!

The 771-775 mod is indeed getting increasingly popular, and when possible, it is extremely cost-efficient. I am not familiar with it enough to tell when it's possible and when it isn't (possibly special support is required on the board/BIOS level).

I have a similar setup to yours, with a QX9650 and a P5Q PRO. The QX9650 is unlocked, so I first tried leaving the FSB at 333MHz and bumping the multiplier. Without voltage increase it worked great at 10 (3.33GHz, but already at 10.5 it wasn't stable). In the end I settled for leaving the multiplier alone and boosting the FSB, which is said to be a bit better for overall system performance. For a few years I had it at 9*400=3.6GHz. Using the board's auto settings it bumped the voltage to 1.3V, which is a bit high, but it was running pretty cool, and had zero stability issues. Recently, probably due to the age of the board, it started being a bit finicky (losing some of its SATA ports from time to time), so I decided to drop it back to the stock settings. Can't really say that I feel any difference in performance.

I came across the 771 to 775 mod when I was researching benchmark tests on the Q6600 & E8400.
But, since I got the Q6600 for free, and I don't want to spend more money, I'll stick with the Q6600.

I swopped out the E8400 with the Q6600 and test results with 3D Mark Vantage were as follows (I'm only listing the CPU score since graphics performance was basically the same):
E8400 (9 x 333 MHz = 3.0 GHz): 5845
Q6600 (9 x 266 MHz = 2.4 GHz): 8607
Q6600 (9 x 333 MHz = 3.0 GHz): 10489

With Frybench, there already was faster performance with the Q6600 (in standard mode), compared to the E8400 but, there definitely was a significant difference when I overclocked the Q6600 to 3.0 GHz.