E660 is 2 cores running at 2400 MHz with a 1066 MHz fsb. Q9400 is 4 cores running at 2666 MHz with a 1333 MHz fsb. So even single core software will run faster, and software that runs on all cores will benefit from double the cores, higher clock and faster fsb on the Q9400. For a simple comparison, see https://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/705/Intel_C … Quad_Q9400.html

And you get SSE4.1. Totally worth it.

According to http://abit.ws/cpu-support-list/mb/intel_975x … aw9d_series.htm, the board does not support Q9xx0 series quad cores. A C0 stepping E8400 or E8500 seems to be your best upgrade option, as support for E0 stepping of those chips also seems questionable. The good news is you don't really need a quad core for a Windows XP build, almost nothing you'd want to run on one is going to make use of even 2 cores, let alone 4, so you're not losing anything sticking to a dual core.

Had one of these boards. Great for overclocking a C2D, but C2Qs were stock only, they just wouldn't clock reliably at all. If I recall, they weren't officially supported, but a BIOS update enabled support.

Board is 65nm chips only, so highest chip is a QX6850, or you can get a Q6600 / Q6700 cheaply.

If my memory serves me correctly, its a 975 chipset, codenamed Bad Axe 😀

EDIT: Just saw the list above; looks like the QX6850 is out of the equation as its 1333Mhz FSB so QX6800 is the ceiling.

My fault.

I think my options are Core 2 Quad Q6700 or Q6600.
Or
As @frudi says, think anout e8xxxx

yes its worth it. maybe not for gaming but for general purpose use these days ya

I still daily drive a core 2 E8600 based system and it still does all that I need.

That is true, E8600 is still very powerfull CPU. I also own this chip and it does very well even in comparison with quad core AMD cpus (I compare it here to AMD Athlon64 X4 620).

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 01:25:

I still daily drive a core 2 E8600 based system and it still does all that I need.

Makes me wonder how you actually browse this forum on that hardware..

E8600 only comes as E0 stepping I believe, which might not be properly supported on this board. It might still work, or it might run unstable or not at all. Luckily it shouldn't be expensive, so not much risk even if it doesn't end up working. Still, a C0 stepping of E8500 or E8400 would be a safer choice.

As for Q6600 or Q6700, depends really on what you will be using the machine for. If just for Windows XP era gaming, then you're not really going to see much or any benefit from the two extra cores, while having to deal with the extra heat and noise that comes from removing that heat. You would get some performance bump in games due to potentially higher clock speed or more L2 cache per core (not sure if your current CPU is E6400 or E6600 since the first post mentions both; E6400 runs at 2.13 GHz with 2 MB total L2 cache, E6600 is 2.40 GHz with 4 MB L2, while Q6600 and Q6700 are 2.40/2.67 GHz with 2x4 MB L2), but even then you'd get even more benefit from a E8400/E8500 which increase both further (3.0/3.16 GHz and 6 MB L2).

Someone else mentioned the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, which the board also supports, that's an unlocked quad core that runs at 2.93 GHz at stock. But that one costs closer to $100, which doesn't make sense to get since it would cost way less to just get another board and an even faster Q9xx0 series quad. Perhaps you could look for a QX6700, which, while clocked lower at 2.67 GHz stock, is also unlocked so you could just increase the multiplier and run it at a higher speed. It's still more expensive than most other discussed CPUs, but maybe you can find one for like $30 or thereabouts.

What about modded 771 Xeons? I've been using Xeon L5420 (12M Cache, 2.50 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) and it runs cool as it is rated for only 50W (confirmed with power meter). Should be overclockable.

I have 2 AW9D-MAX. One is flashed with the latest official BIOS and can take an E8400 C0 but not a Q9650 which only comes in E0 revision. The other one is flashed with the latest unofficial BIOS and can take a Q9650 with no problems. I recommend WWW.soggi.org for the latest official and unofficial BIOS updates! Both Abit Fatal1ty F-I90HD and Abit IN9 32X – MAX flashed with the latest beta BIOS run Q9650 with no problems whatsoever. All the boards mentioned above also run with 8gb of RAM without errors . I have a fully assembled system designed to represent the best of 2006 with Abit AW9D-MAX, Q6600 because I could not find QX6700 for a reasonable price, 8gb of RAM, X1950XTX in crossfire running Vista perfectly fine.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 09:55:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 01:25:

I still daily drive a core 2 E8600 based system and it still does all that I need.

Makes me wonder how you actually browse this forum on that hardware..

I browse this forum usually with a Dual Core 1,9Ghz SSSE3 low power netbook cpu and usually it works perfectly. Maybe my expectations are not the one many have from high end smartphones or powerful modern PCs but I think nowdays expectations surpassed the real needs of the consumer. Most of the time the problem is to wait some milliseconds more compared to much more powerful systems..
Sure there're complex homepages (for example newspaper ones) where it suffers the amount of jscripts most are advertising related and most of the time take 60% of the time the "real" homepage would need to be rendered..
Compared to many of the still remaining computer forums out there this forum is still very light and great. Maybe I preferred the old GUI theme but still I'd like internet would still be as light as it was in decades ago.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 09:55:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 01:25:

I still daily drive a core 2 E8600 based system and it still does all that I need.

Makes me wonder how you actually browse this forum on that hardware..

We have zero issues with browsing web pages, you tube, ABC Mouse, ECT. We do all of our daily normal things with it

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 14:44:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 09:55:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 01:25:

I still daily drive a core 2 E8600 based system and it still does all that I need.

Makes me wonder how you actually browse this forum on that hardware..

We have zero issues with browsing web pages, you tube, ABC Mouse, ECT. We do all of our daily normal things with it

I'll take your word for it. I find the experience of using even first gen Intel core laptops to be a jawgrinder when I have to do web stuff. Most modern browsers are crazy memory and CPU hogs...

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 15:10:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 14:44:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 09:55:

Makes me wonder how you actually browse this forum on that hardware..

We have zero issues with browsing web pages, you tube, ABC Mouse, ECT. We do all of our daily normal things with it

I'll take your word for it. I find the experience of using even first gen Intel core laptops to be a jawgrinder when I have to do web stuff. Most modern browsers are crazy memory and CPU hogs...

I fully agree with that for laptops my wife's laptop is core 2 and it's super slow.

My desktop is the E8600 @ 3.33Ghz, 8 gigs ram @1066Mhz, EGA 680i, Sparkle GTX 470 OC, 500 gig WD black storage hard drive, 480 gig sad is/boot drive with Win 7 Ultimate. It really handles out tasks just fine. When browsing or watching you tube or even Sling TV it usually sits around 30-35% CPU usage and hovers around 3-3.5 gigs of RAM usage.

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 15:28:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 15:10:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 14:44:

We have zero issues with browsing web pages, you tube, ABC Mouse, ECT. We do all of our daily normal things with it

I'll take your word for it. I find the experience of using even first gen Intel core laptops to be a jawgrinder when I have to do web stuff. Most modern browsers are crazy memory and CPU hogs...

I fully agree with that for laptops my wife's laptop is core 2 and it's super slow.

My desktop is the E8600 @ 3.33Ghz, 8 gigs ram @1066Mhz, EGA 680i, Sparkle GTX 470 OC, 500 gig WD black storage hard drive, 480 gig sad is/boot drive with Win 7 Ultimate. It really handles out tasks just fine. When browsing or watching you tube or even Sling TV it usually sits around 30-35% CPU usage and hovers around 3-3.5 gigs of RAM usage.

I have friends who still use a Core2 Quad (Q8300 or Q8200) and a Xeon E5450 for Facebook, browsing, etc under Windows 10 x64 and I hear no complaints . Having more than 4GB RAM and running of SSDs certainly doesn't hurt .

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 15:28:

appiah4 wrote on 2021-01-19, 15:10:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-01-19, 14:44:

We have zero issues with browsing web pages, you tube, ABC Mouse, ECT. We do all of our daily normal things with it

I'll take your word for it. I find the experience of using even first gen Intel core laptops to be a jawgrinder when I have to do web stuff. Most modern browsers are crazy memory and CPU hogs...

I fully agree with that for laptops my wife's laptop is core 2 and it's super slow.

My desktop is the E8600 @ 3.33Ghz, 8 gigs ram @1066Mhz, EGA 680i, Sparkle GTX 470 OC, 500 gig WD black storage hard drive, 480 gig sad is/boot drive with Win 7 Ultimate. It really handles out tasks just fine. When browsing or watching you tube or even Sling TV it usually sits around 30-35% CPU usage and hovers around 3-3.5 gigs of RAM usage.

The little computer in my workshop is also an E8600 with 8GB of DDR3-1333 and an 840 Pro SSD. I mostly use it for browsing, music, Netflix, and YouTube when I'm working in there. It runs all of that stuff (atop Win10 20H2) just fine.

Even handles YouTube at 1080p/60 and 1440p/30 just fine on the integrated graphics! Some computer stuff certainly hasn't aged well, but 45nm Core 2 is still doing fine for casual computer stuff in 2021!

As others have said, an SSD can make a Core 2 system very tolerable for every day use for most people. I put an old Crucial C300 64GB in a Dell Vostro with a Core 2 Duo (can't remember which model) and it runs Windows 10 just fine. My daughter uses it as a glorified CD\media player in her bedroom. Since it was free, it was cheaper and more flexible than a CD player, and unlike the cheap junky CD players out there today, I can just swap the drive if it ever stops reading correctly. It boots in seconds, responds quickly and runs smooth.

And then there are people that can get by doing actual WORK on surprisingly slow systems.

I put together a system for some relatives several (several I say!) years ago, and it's using a Pentium E5700 (Wolfdale-3M, 3Ghz, 800mhz FSB... similar to E8500, but less cache and slower FSB), 4GB of DDR2, Geforce GT520 and a 7200RPM hard drive of some sort. It upgraded to Windows 10 at some point and they had no problems using it until recently when it developed some irritating software problem causing a Windows service to constantly max out disk usage. They are STILL using it that way. I tried diagnosing it for a while, but the high disk usage makes it so slow it's excruciating. I am instead going to just put together a new system for them. They said the old one was totally fine for their uses (ebay listing, editing product photos, maybe solitaire, etc.) before the slow down issue started. I wouldn't actually do this, but I think simply upgrading that system to an SSD would probably be all they would need for 10 more years, barring any massive shift in CPU or memory requirements for browsers.

My wife was also using an HP HDX18 18" laptop she bought in ~2009, with a Core 2 Duo (P-something... a good one), a 9600M GT and 4GB DDR2 until summer of 2020 when it finally died. I swapped one of the 7200RPM hard drives for a 128GB Samsung 830 back in 2012, and put a more modern wifi card in it 3 years ago, but aside from that it was running all the original hardware, and she used it for all sorts of stuff with no complaints. I used it from time to time and it was always fast.