sure, if i had a choice between a q6600 with 2x2 mb l2 cache vs a q6600 with 2x4 mb l2 cache, i would take the latter. the love affair with the q6600 is no longer warranted guys. you are comparing apples to oranges. the q8xxx is a newer/better architecture with a faster fsb. the extra cache doesn't overcome the improvements on the q8400. why does an e8200 perform better in games than a q6600? read the bit-tech reviews. for even money, you take a q8400 any day, and last i checked, the q6600 costs more than a q8400, at least on newegg it does.
quick price check Q6700 - £142.22 2.66ghz and 10x multi 8mb cache Q8400 - £153.28 - £2.66Ghz 4mb Cache x8 multi now i know The q8x00 series are faster clock for clock 5%. The Q6700 has twice the cache as the Q8400 and clocks easily more than 5% above what a Q8400 is able to achieve and to top it off is cheaper. Fair enough the Q8x00 series arent terrible but they just arent as good as the older Q6x00 series. They dont overclock as well, have less cache and are more expensive. They are also more difficult to overclock and need a board that can do over 500FSB to get the most out of them. The advantages that the Q8x00 series has are SEE4 instructions and they are more efficient and run cooler. If i wasnt overclocking then a Q8x00 may be a good choice as they are slightly faster at stock.
absolutely...but the q6700 isnt available over here. didn't know it was available over there. i wonder why. but your original post was about the q6600. if we are talking about a q6700 that is cheaper than a q8400 and all he cares about is which one gives him the highest oc, by all means, grab a q6700. although the poster doesn't strike me as a guy interested in the highest overclock, since he has an e6400 at 3.0, which we all know they can hit 3.3+ on air pretty standard.
yeah maybe your right so our little bickering is making no difference to his actual purchase anyway lol pfft i forgot whats going on now anyway lol
I thought CPC found that, while the Q6600 is slower than a Q8xx at stock, its faster when both are fully OC'd. It's old tech, and I feel slightly rubbish having a 3-generation-old cpu, but if its faster its still worth it (worth checking the mag to see if I'm right mind . . .)
Many thanks for all the information and debate guys. I think from all of this I will go with the Q6700. In regards to OC'ing, I had the E6400 at 3.26Ghz for a while but just toned it down while I'm not gaming due to the broken GFX card. Thanks again. Now to ponder whether it's better to get two 4770's instead of one 4870!
i know they the same price or maybe the 2x4770 are slightly cheaper. found them on scan for £78. 1GB 4870 is £160.
not sure about pricing over there, but two 4830's are better performers than a 4870, so i would imagine the 4770's in x-fire would be even better. so if it makes sense price-wise, sounds like a plan. guess that depends on what they used to oc. everyone's mileage will vary.
