CPU's How do I research?

saltydog806

I know I can ask for and get feedback from this most wonderful site ( that's it for sucking up);D. I know that the intel 6600 quad with the go chip is better than the one without, however I don't know why. In my limited experience it seems to me that there are cpu's that have the same basic name but are constructed differently somehow. I'm not looking to get a degree though I would like to gain some knowledge. Any site or other recommendations? At this point I am most interested in the Intel 775's.

Sonorous

"The original Core 2 processors that launched in July of last year were stepping B1, they were later replaced by a B2 stepping. Intel quietly introduced a new core with only 2MB of L2 cache (instead of 4MB with only half enabled), and thus we gained two more steppings: L2 and M0. The quad-core processors use a slightly different core stepping as well: B3. More recently, Intel introduced yet another revision to its Core 2 microprocessors: the G0 stepping."

source: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3066

:-D

Sonorous

So I wasn't sure what stepping of the Q6600 I am running. After looking it up on http://processorfinder.intel.comI was pleased to find out that I have a q6600 with a G0 stepping. So thank you for peaking my interest with this thread. Learned something new this morning.

BuddyJ

Sonorous nailed it. Stepping changes are design tweaks on processors. They're done to fix bugs and generally improve performance. Usually, the latest stepping is the best chip to buy as it's generally more refined and mature. G0 is the hotness for Intel chips currently.

saltydog806

Buddy J wrote:

Sonorous nailed it. Stepping changes are design tweaks on processors. They're done to fix bugs and generally improve performance. Usually, the latest stepping is the best chip to buy as it's generally more refined and mature. G0 is the hotness for Intel chips currently.

So with all other considerations aside, (and I know that there are allot, thanks to Sonorous and his link I just discovered something called "Bus/Core Ratio") if I want to keep it in the $200 range and be able to do some serious overclocking it sounds like the Q6600 w/GO or the Q6700 w/ GO (I think all 6700's are GO) is the way to (dare I say it) GO? Is the 6700 worth $40 more than the 6600 ($179 vs $219)?

BuddyJ

Are you sure you need a quad? If you are in it for gaming and overclocking, a dual will usually clock higher and do what you need. If you're Folding, go quad, but be aware that quads don't typically produce as high an overclock as a dual will.

Sonorous

If you want quad core, the 6600 is a better choice. The price difference does not warrant the small performance jump. Just get a Q6600 and clock it to 6700 speeds. My 6600 goes to 3.3 on air easy, and I have seen way higher clocks on air with this chip.

Snarkasm

3.6 on air with mine right now. It's ridonkulously easy.

saltydog806

Buddy J wrote:

Are you sure you need a quad? If you are in it for gaming and overclocking, a dual will usually clock higher and do what you need. If you're Folding, go quad, but be aware that quads don't typically produce as high an overclock as a dual will.

Yes I'm in it for gaming and overclocking, however I do Fold ( not at the moment because I don't have a working PC and am stuck w/ my wives Mac):eek3:. Call me a fool, I'd rather give up some gaming and OC to the benefit of Folding. I am leaning strongly towards the 6600 w/GO. If I wanted to go to the next reasonable step up from the 6600 (cost/performance) what would that be?

BuddyJ

Q8200 or Q9300, but that's more of a guess than me trying to state a fact. They're 45nm chips instead of 65nm. They rock a highers FSB and should run cooler stock and hopefully overclock higher. But they've got low multipliers so they won't hit the higher overclocks.

The Q9300 in synthetic benchmarks has an okay lead over the Q6600. Here's some Folding benchmarks too.

My uneducated guess is that the 45nm chips would be best served on a P45 or nForce 790i board with some RAM that could push a high FSB to make up for the low multiplier.

muddocktor

Buddy J wrote:

Q8200 or Q9300, but that's more of a guess than me trying to state a fact. They're 45nm chips instead of 65nm. They rock a highers FSB and should run cooler stock and hopefully overclock higher. But they've got low multipliers so they won't hit the higher overclocks.

The Q9300 in synthetic benchmarks has an okay lead over the Q6600. Here's some Folding benchmarks too.

My uneducated guess is that the 45nm chips would be best served on a P45 or nForce 790i board with some RAM that could push a high FSB to make up for the low multiplier.

Yeah, that last part of your post really hits the nail on the head about the 45 nm quads, Buddy J. The Wolfdales don't have problems with fsb speeds but the Yorkfields do. The low multiplier for a given clock speed on the quads makes for running high fsb speeds and older chipsets such as the P35, X38 and even the X48 don't do high fsb speeds too well with the Q9xxx series of quads. The P45 chipset would probably be best for overclocking a Q9xxx series quad, unless you go with something like an Extreme that is multi unlocked. But you will pay through the nose for them too if you buy new. I have seen some QX9650's selling in the $400-500 range lately in forum Classifieds/Trading Posts though, from people that are upgrading to i7 systems.