Mitch92uK
aka [DBS]Mitch92uK
+192|6504|United Kingdom

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wallpaper wrote:

Definitely get a Q6600. I dont see any point in getting a dual core (even if it is quite speedy). The Q6600 (try to get it with G0 stepping) is a good overclocker, so if you need more speed later on you can OC instead of buying a new processor.
Isn't the Q9300 only around $80 more?
It is but I'm pretty sure the Q66 will clock higher than the Q93?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7041|PNW

Mitch92uK wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wallpaper wrote:

Definitely get a Q6600. I dont see any point in getting a dual core (even if it is quite speedy). The Q6600 (try to get it with G0 stepping) is a good overclocker, so if you need more speed later on you can OC instead of buying a new processor.
Isn't the Q9300 only around $80 more?
It is but I'm pretty sure the Q66 will clock higher than the Q93?
True. The '66 does have a higher multiplier, if I remember right, and people waited for the '93 because the '66 price would drop. On the other hand, '93 OC's should be cooler with the smaller core die. Still, I'd prefer a Q9450 over either.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-05 10:57:55)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard