Been asked I am sure

M

mstersmith

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
138
This has probably been asked a lot but, Q9300 or Q6600? I do plan to overclock. I primarily use my computer to game on. Also with the price drop on the Q6600 is pretty tempting to be begin with. Thanks for all the help.
 
Q6600 for sure. The Q9300 has a low multiplier which limits what you can get from it.
 
Q9300 overclocked is probably equal to slightly faster than Q6600 overclocked (it won't reach such a high frequency, but it's about 10% better clock for clock), but considering the price difference, it's hard to recommend the Q9300.
 
Maybe you should consider a Q6700?

The Q9300 is terrible for overclocking from what I have personally experienced.
 
I'd recommend the Q6600 over the Q6700 too, especially if you're overclocking - virtually all Kentsfields overclock well, so there's little reason to pay extra for the Q6700. It's not an insane price now, but the Q6600 is excellent value.
 
Q6600 would get my vote, just remember to have realistic expectations. A lot of people on this forum seem to think 3.6GHz is not only easy, but almost gauranteed. It isn't. At least half the Q6600's PC's I've built did not reach 3.6GHz stable. Out of the ones that did, most ran too hot. 3.2GHz is a much more realistic expectation with 3.4GHz possible with a little bit of good luck and 3.6GHz is reserved for those who got lucky enough to get a good batch.
 
Wow thanks for all the responses. I am thinking that 3.0 would be nice and if I get more out of it then great. If not well I cant complain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top