X xxfirexx Baseband Member Messages 31 Dec 16, 2008 #11 My budget is only $1000 CAD So i7 won't work for me. Q9550 mite fit into my budget but its $200 more than a e8400 or Q6600 so I don't think its worth it.
My budget is only $1000 CAD So i7 won't work for me. Q9550 mite fit into my budget but its $200 more than a e8400 or Q6600 so I don't think its worth it.
chesirecat1701 Running on empty. Messages 403 Location Nicaragua Dec 16, 2008 #12 mmmm Core 2 Duo goodness, i think it's just me but I love the E8400/E8500
veg1992 Golden Master Messages 19,993 Dec 16, 2008 #13 Hussein19891 said: If your going Intel. Go with the wolfdale instead of the older 65nm quad which is often times outperformed by the Phenom 9950 and 9850. Trust me you won't regret it. E8400 is BLAZING fast once you overclock to about 4.00ghz~ on air. Click to expand... These words will attract Maroon very very soon.. I'd say jump on the e8400, if you can afford a q6700 or a q9550 I'd recommend those over an e8400 any day
Hussein19891 said: If your going Intel. Go with the wolfdale instead of the older 65nm quad which is often times outperformed by the Phenom 9950 and 9850. Trust me you won't regret it. E8400 is BLAZING fast once you overclock to about 4.00ghz~ on air. Click to expand... These words will attract Maroon very very soon.. I'd say jump on the e8400, if you can afford a q6700 or a q9550 I'd recommend those over an e8400 any day
meat_helmet Daemon Poster Messages 1,119 Location Sydney, Australia Dec 16, 2008 #14 Or...wait till the Phenom IIs come out and see how they stack up.
philbar71 Fully Optimized Messages 4,533 Location Suffolk, VA Dec 16, 2008 #15 check out the q9300 if you want a quad. it's only a little bit more but it is on average 5% faster than the q6600
check out the q9300 if you want a quad. it's only a little bit more but it is on average 5% faster than the q6600
meat_helmet Daemon Poster Messages 1,119 Location Sydney, Australia Dec 16, 2008 #16 philbar71 said: check out the q9300 if you want a quad. it's only a little bit more but it is on average 5% faster than the q6600 Click to expand... And it probably does overclock better - although im not positive about that.
philbar71 said: check out the q9300 if you want a quad. it's only a little bit more but it is on average 5% faster than the q6600 Click to expand... And it probably does overclock better - although im not positive about that.
philbar71 Fully Optimized Messages 4,533 Location Suffolk, VA Dec 16, 2008 #17 i have heard at about 3.6ghz they hit a fsb wall or some thing like that.
veg1992 Golden Master Messages 19,993 Dec 16, 2008 #18 Its a FSB Wall because of the Low Multiplier.. I don't know what speed exactly though.. It'd be a perfectly fine chip if the multiplier was just a bit higher
Its a FSB Wall because of the Low Multiplier.. I don't know what speed exactly though.. It'd be a perfectly fine chip if the multiplier was just a bit higher
philbar71 Fully Optimized Messages 4,533 Location Suffolk, VA Dec 16, 2008 #19 thats it i think the multi is like 7 or 7.5 vernong1992 said: It'd be a perfectly fine chip if the multiplier was just a bit higher Click to expand... i think intel did that so that it would compete with the q6600.
thats it i think the multi is like 7 or 7.5 vernong1992 said: It'd be a perfectly fine chip if the multiplier was just a bit higher Click to expand... i think intel did that so that it would compete with the q6600.
Hussein19891 Biostar Stole my heart Messages 2,210 Location Canada Dec 16, 2008 #20 vernong1992 said: These words will attract Maroon very very soon.. Click to expand... *Kisses his *** good bye*
vernong1992 said: These words will attract Maroon very very soon.. Click to expand... *Kisses his *** good bye*