so what about the smaller architecture, higher stock clock, higher FSB, more cache?
cos the Q6600 has slightly better overhead for OCing does it make it better, are intel releasing cpu's that perform worse then what theyre replacing?
it's just the q6600 and q6700 overclock more then it, so even if someone just wanted to oc a bit there still wouldn't be a reason to get the q9450 because it is much more exspensive. It is still a good chip though.
surely this is budget talk, are we not in the 'High Performance" section of the forum. So i would say there's 3 ways you can go in high performance, budget bang of buck spec like your suggestions vernong, medium "up-to-date" <-($$) systems with a good budget and total extreme. I think the Q9450 is a good recommendation for medium/high rig with a good budget. Yes the Q6600 will perform equally aswell at less of a price, but there are many other factors to consider. Some people want a good gaming high end pc without "hassle"and are prepared to pay a little more whatever the price to have an easier ride. I cant believe you guys fuss about the price so much when you have some of the cheapest components on the planet.
So yeh vernong we are all in the right here its just how you look at it. lets have a group hug and drink beer