Have a look at my planned build please?

[thirdshiftdj]

lol. I didn't want to be mean to you. First off the q9450 has a lower multi, hits 475fsb if your lucky. Do you know how hard it is you oc a quad core that high??? I didn't think so. It doesn't matter what cpu vcore its running or how cool it is. Does it play a role, yes, but theres more to it than that. Your PLL,NB,VTT voltages will kill it long before you reach a 4ghz clock which a q6600 is capable of doing. You think vcore is the only way to kill a cpu? I agreed that it ran cooler. But I don't agree w/ it running more stable because of what I just stated. Get your facts straight before opening your mouth friend

edit: Don't get butt hurt on the net.

 

[Kjølen]

Your PLL,NB,VTT voltages will kill it long before you reach a 4ghz clock which a q6600 is capable of doing.

Yes, for that reason, it's lucky that I wasn't reviewing the motherboard. Since the motherboard has held back both processors in regards to the FSB speeds they can handle, we have to make the CPUs part of a free-body-diagram, where other components are ignored, more likely due to similarity in specifications. Don't think that I've never tried to overclock a single, dual, or quad core processor. I think I understand the difficulty curve in that regard. Yet, since both CPUs have been reported to overclock stably as high as any other CPU that's been overclocked with the right cooling, what becomes the point here? If clock speed becomes negligible, what else do we have to look at besides heat and energy efficiency?

But, this has become something akin to a religious squabble over differing priorities, so continuing is a large waste of our energies. You're entitled to hold the Q6600 higher in respect, valuing stability at higher and higher clock speeds, while I'll stick to my preference with the Q9450 where efficiency in overclocking is my highest concern.