How does the Quad 6600 stack up vs. the Quad 6700. Is its price to performance ratio a good buy now? Or will it only be a good buy once the price drops to the $500 range?

Also, is it a good idea to wait to overclock, thus saving the life of the CPU till it starts to struggle to run programs at max settings. At that point, overclock the heck out of it?

Are there any benchmarks on real world Quad performance overclocked vs. stock. My impression is that the quads can run everday programs, under normal/realistic mutlitasking levels, at max noticable capacity @ stock. Overclocking won't necessarily provide a major boost in real life performance... at this point... am I wrong?

Thanks.

I been using a Q6600 for over 6 month now (not overclocked) and runs great in all applications. Games starts and runs faster on the X6800OC but nothing can beat the Quad Core for photoshop, Sony Vegas, etc..

I built a QX6700 (not overclocked yet) few weeks ago and can't tell the diff. between the two.

Should be a great value if you edit videos.

I thought the Q6600 was just released? Are you talking about an C2D e6600?

Thanks.

I thought the Q6600 was just released? Are you talking about an C2D e6600?

Thanks.

I was one of the lucky few and got a 2.4GHz Quad Core summer of last year.

If young worked for Intel, I can see getting one early, but not in the summer. The release date for the QX6700 was November, and the first previews of Kentsfield didn't start rolling in until almost October. My point on this matter is, don't throw around fud, just be honest with people. Otherwise, you, young, sound ridiculous.

Now, twistedsister, besides the bump up in 266mhz, the QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, the Q6600 does not. That makes for greater overclocking capabilities. You might not be able to see a real world difference in performance between the two, but once you start to reach 1ghz overclocks, you can tell the difference. From what I've read about the Q6600, it doesn't overclock as high as the QX6700. That's most likely due to the locked multiplier and the fact that it is clocked 266mhz slower at stock speeds. As of now, the price difference between the two is minimal. Heck, I got my QX6700 for $915. If you can wait a few months for the price to drop on the Q6600, do it. But if you're in the market now, go for the QX6700. I don't think you'll be disappointed be either one.

I'm waiting a few months to build my rig till:
1) Photoshop CS3 arrives
2) Vista 64 gets a little more user experience
3) R600 comes out (even though I'll probably go Nvidia just some $$ save)
4) Quads drop in price
5) more 2GB sticks on the market (looking to have 2X2GB sticks).

What about my question on overclocking... just a waste right now? Wait till the processor becomes a little outdated with the marketplace to save chip life?

maybe young does not work for Intel but he works for a company that does lots of business with Intel. Maybe young has good relationship with Intel and sometimes gets good toys to play around with.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] highlight=
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] highlight=

you korbin44 just got owned and should not flame!!!

young ask for a Penyrn sample and lets see how lucky he gets this time.

You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

pwned!

You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

Cool, you'll have to keep informed on your rig specs and anything you learn to maximize photoshop performance.

So you were going XP 64 (to support your ram)... honestly I wouldn't mess with that. At least Vista 64 will have much more driver support and will have a much larger consumer base in the future. 64 bit IS the future, just a matter of when it goes mainstream.

Last time I heard, CS3 was a Q2 release... dang I hope it doesn't get delayed.

I'm going to try 4GBs of ram at first to see if it's manageable for a year or so... if so, I could save some serious $$$ as 2GB sticks come down in price.

Yeah, I also plan on being 8GB or more in the next 2 years.

Okay, young, here's the deal. CPU Z has a verification program. Did you verify your screenshots back then? If so, where's the proof? You could have photoshoped the pictures, who knows. But I do know that Intel would have had a fit if you where doing this before tech sites like Anandtech, or Tomshardware. The are certain guidelines and restrictions put on review sites. Besides, who's gonna risk there job just to get you an ES of Kentsfield over a month before benmarks are publicly posted on on these tech sites? Give me a break, dude. You might as well start telling everyone you have an ES of agena, or barcelona. Post some pics of that. I didn't come here to flame you or get flamed, but it's disappointing when people have to lie to get attention.

Twisted Sister wrote:

I don't think overclocking is a waste at all. With the unlocked multiplier of the QX6700 you can go from 2.66ghz to 3.33ghz without any adjustments to the vcore. Just up the multiplier to 11 and the FSB to 300. It's really that easy. And you will notice the difference from stock to overclock in real time. Chip life isn't as big a factor as you would think. These cpu's are built to last, and even with an overclock they'll last for 3-5 years. By then, you'll want to upgrade.

I've got a QX8900.....wanna see?

You've got about the same strategy that I have. My rig has to be Photoshop-centric as well. However, I'm trying real hard to not go Vista as I profoundly hate how Gates has turned it into an Operating Satan. Also, I don't need DX10, so a good DX9 card will do me just fine. I want dual quads and need 8GB RAM at least (my first estimates were 16GB, but that was a bit too pricy). When is the ETA of CS3? I'd read that they had delayed it a bit.

Cool, you'll have to keep informed on your rig specs and anything you learn to maximize photoshop performance.

So you were going XP 64 (to support your ram)... honestly I wouldn't mess with that. At least Vista 64 will have much more driver support and will have a much larger consumer base in the future. 64 bit IS the future, just a matter of when it goes mainstream.

Last time I heard, CS3 was a Q2 release... dang I hope it doesn't get delayed.

I'm going to try 4GBs of ram at first to see if it's manageable for a year or so... if so, I could save some serious $$$ as 2GB sticks come down in price.

Yeah, I also plan on being 8GB or more in the next 2 years.

I'm no software specialist nor rocket scientist, but here is what I understand and I AM BEGGING EVERYONE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG!!!!!!!

1) Under XP Pro 64 I can allocate 4GB to current 32bit CS2 Photoshop alone, leaving the other 4GB free for other apps, OS, etc.

2) THG's front page today states that Vista actually runs slower than XP, ReadyBoost etc. or not. Their conclusion is that you're better off throwing more conventional RAM at XP than messing around with USB Flash Drives, etc. with Vista.

3) I want 2xQuads since I'm looking for FORWARD COMPATIBILITY. I know damn well that it's way overkill today, but I wanna buy my box this summer/autumn, plunk it in my room, hook it up and FORGET ABOUT IT until 2010 at least. I don't wanna upgrade it, change it, modify it or do anything but work on it for a few years. I don't make my money replacing components on my PC, I make money working on a well-operating, efficient, up-to-date PC.

4) I don't game. So DX10 means zilch to me. I use video like crazy and need high quality, but I can't see any video development on the horizon that is gonna require DX10. High end DX9 will be just fine, thank you.

5) I need fast, secure and ample storage. OS/Apps on 150GB Raptor, Data on 4x750GB 7200.10s on RAID 5 should do the trick. Sure, I could put the OS/Apps on a 32GB RAMdisk but the basic question remains "is it worth it to save maybe 2 minutes total a day?"

6) I couldn't care less if the CPU says AMD, Intel or FisherPrice.

Those are pretty well my requirements and the direction I'm going in right now. I have no use for server hw, so if I can avoid 771/FB-DIMMs, etc. then great. If I can't, then that's great too.

I JUST WANT IT TO WORK FINE AND GO ZOOM ZOOM.