some Q6600 OC help please

[Yahonmaizosz]

Come to think of it, how is the OP doing? Had he managed to find out what is troubling his Q6600??

EDIT: Ooopss!! I forgot to use the EDIT button... Sorry...

 

[OBLIVIONLORD]

The Q9300 will perform much worse than the Q6600. It has less L2 cache and will not overclock as good as the Q6600.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_13.html#sect0

I have to disagree with you looking at these facts/trials which prove otherwise in performance and power when comparing the 9300 vs. the 6600 stock vs. stock as well as over-clocked amounts. In terms of over-clocking, even though the 9300 is 100 MHz slower than the 6600 at 3.5 vs. 3.6, the 9300 exceeds in every test. Regardless of the lower cache amount, the 9300 is a far superior chip; the only current drawback is the price, which will soon change, since it is a bit inflated over the $250 suggested retail price.

From the same site: "The benchmark results indicate clearly that all our concerns were absolutely unfounded. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 even without a larger L2 cache, only thanks to architectural improvements introduced in Penryn processors, higher bus frequency and 100MHz higher clock speed. Moreover, there isn’t a single application where the old CPU would demonstrate higher results, and the overall performance advantage is about 7%, which is quite a lot."

 

[Yahonmaizosz]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300_13.html#sect0

I have to disagree with you looking at these facts/trials which prove otherwise in performance and power when comparing the 9300 vs. the 6600 stock vs. stock as well as over-clocked amounts. In terms of over-clocking, even though the 9300 is 100 MHz slower than the 6600 at 3.5 vs. 3.6, the 9300 exceeds in every test. Regardless of the lower cache amount, the 9300 is a far superior chip; the only current drawback is the price, which will soon change, since it is a bit inflated over the $250 suggested retail price.

From the same site: "The benchmark results indicate clearly that all our concerns were absolutely unfounded. Core 2 Quad Q9300 is faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600 even without a larger L2 cache, only thanks to architectural improvements introduced in Penryn processors, higher bus frequency and 100MHz higher clock speed. Moreover, there isn’t a single application where the old CPU would demonstrate higher results, and the overall performance advantage is about 7%, which is quite a lot."

Well, what can I say, I admit my mistake. Q9300 could be a good chip after all.

 

[cpt>hollywood]

Yahonmaizosz

thanks for asking...this WAS my thread....it's ok i don't mind sharing

i wanted to try lapping this weekend, but between building a box for my father-in-law and work/kids/life, it looks like i won't be able to do it. the best i might try would be lowering the vcore, but even that's not looking too good.

i PROMISE to let you know if and when i make any progress. you guys have been too helpful to leave you all hanging like that

thanks for thinking of me!

 

[Yahonmaizosz]

Yahonmaizosz

thanks for asking...this WAS my thread....it's ok i don't mind sharing

i wanted to try lapping this weekend, but between building a box for my father-in-law and work/kids/life, it looks like i won't be able to do it. the best i might try would be lowering the vcore, but even that's not looking too good.

i PROMISE to let you know if and when i make any progress. you guys have been too helpful to leave you all hanging like that

thanks for thinking of me!

Sure thing!

Good luck with everything, we will keep waiting here