Page 2 - INTEL Q6600 VS AMD Phenom 9700+

real life indicates otherwise. q6600 people get 3 ghz almost guaranteed, normally go for 3.3 ghz. phenoms don't clock nearly as well. its sort of hit and miss, more or less 2.8 ghz, but not guaranteed.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20..._2_quad_q6600/2
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/artic...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

200mhz "fsb" on phenom is misguided. its 200mhz of HyperTransport Bus, which is significantly faster than intel's current front side bus. HTT runs at 200mhzx5, while intel's runs at quad pumped 266 mhz (1066 mhz)

multipliers dont matter as much as do the chip itself and the board's ability to achieve higher clocks on the fsb. Cooling is another issue.

The way the processor is made is another factor as well. kentsfield have two dies while phenom has one die

You should only go the AMD route if you are building a mid range or lower PC because of the competitive pricing of AMD which is the only thing that has kept them in the game this long.

Take a look at this chart from tomshardware http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html where you will find the Q6600 spanking AMD.

Personally if it were me I would go with a Intel Core Duo E8400.....even with a new mobo your gonna be spending $350-$500 (E8400 $200 + Mobo $200 + tax).
Which is not too shabby for a nice gaming system now days
After reading this

Dual or Quad???
I would opt for the Dual Core for now...By the Time they come out with a lot of games that fully utilize Quad Cores there will be something way better as CPU's go.

Even looking at this Chart the E8400 underclocked beat the Phenom.

Can you imagine going from 2.4Ghz on the E8400 to say 4.6Ghz
A nice Super-Pi score

Just my 2 cents

What are you cooling with papa

I wish I had a E8400........Thats just a pick I found on iax-tech.com
If I had one I'd probaly go with an Arctic Cooler............Once lapped it would probably cool enough

i would personally still go with a kentsfield. paired up with a good board, they can be made to consume less power.

plus, did you see the voltage at which that guy has that E8400? thats right. after a 4ghz overclock, you have to force the transistor to respond, thus feeding insane amounts of volts. i doubt thats a safe 24/7 voltage there. this is because of the 45 nm in a way, as intel's new gate has a higher capacitance than the "old technology"

in any case, most i would take an e8400 to would be 4.2 ghz, probably around 4 ghz for everyday use. after that, its simply not worth it.

and i would get a kentsfield over that because kentsfield has technically more processing power. so you can get tasks done faster, thus you can consume less power in teh long run if you return to idle state really fast.

but of course, if it were march now, we would all be jumping in on the yorkfields - there is no reason not to. However, the TDP of yorkfield is exactly the same as that of kentsfield....it might clock marginally better than kentsfield, but i do not think that it will be worth the price premium over kentsfield which has had it's price drop consistently over the last few weeks. plus, intel has scheduled a price drop to 233$ per 1000 units in april for kentsfield...