Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Extreme

It depends if you mean the Dual core extreme or the quad core extreme.

Reckon for an all rounder its the core 2 quad extreme but in terms of gaming id go dual core extreme (well no id go core 2 duo if i was going intel, the £700+ price tag of the extreme series doesnt appeal)

oh so u mean to say that the core 2 extreme has a dual and quad core? but which one is the best for gaming and what speed?pco_rainmaster

Get a core 2 quad or a high end core 2 duo.

Dont know much about Core 2 Extreme series but they are available in Duo or Quad core.

But my advice would be to save money and buy E8400/E8500 or E8600 in Core 2 Duo series, they are all very well overclockable and all are certainly cheaper that Extreme series.

Oh and Dual core is still the best for gaming, but a quad is perfectly sufficient if that is the route you wish to take

oh so u mean to say that the core 2 extreme has a dual and quad core? but which one is the best for gaming and what speed?pco_rainmaster

The only Core 2 Extreme that is a Dual core is very old and would be stomped upon by the Wolfdales of today.

Core 2 Extreme is typically going to be the fastest quad you can get, although it is very expesive. Which is why most just go with a lower end Core 2 quad and overclock. Also since most games of today only use 2 cores, you can get great performance out of a wolfdale, and thanks to their great overclockablity,generally better performance in a 2 core scenario against the Core 2 Extremes.

Extremes have an unlocked multiplyer. So you can increase it. Where non Extreme version you can only go down.9mmSpliff

Wow, I'm surprised you are the first one to know what the difference is. That goes to show that Intels marketing for those chips isn't very good.

[QUOTE="9mmSpliff"]Extremes have an unlocked multiplyer. So you can increase it. Where non Extreme version you can only go down.threepac81

Wow, I'm surprised you are the first one to know what the difference is. That goes to show that Intels marketing for those chips isn't very good.

1.Seems like the TC isnt hardcore enough to understand.

2.Core 2 extreme's are worthless anyways.

lets just say my 3.33 GHz Q6600 wich cost me less than 200$ gets nearly the performance of the 1000$ QX9650GTR2addict

Alternatively, with a QX9650, you could overclock to levels you couldn't reach with the Q6600.

[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]lets just say my 3.33 GHz Q6600 wich cost me less than 200$ gets nearly the performance of the 1000$ QX9650webstaxero

Alternatively, with a QX9650, you could overclock to levels you couldn't reach with the Q6600.

yeah, but then again, the QX 9650 wold be far more expensive, therefore, not worth it, a 4 GHz Q6600 is perfectly possible with good water (i.e. a lapped D-tek fuzion V2) , then again so is a 5.4 GHz 9650 O.o

yeah, but then again, the QX 9650 wold be far more expensive, therefore, not worth it, a 4 GHz Q6600 is perfectly possible with good water (i.e. a lapped D-tek fuzion V2) , then again so is a 5.4 GHz 9650 O.o

GTR2addict

Whether or not the QX9650 is worth it or not is entirely up to the person. It might not be worth it to you, but it is to some people.

A 4GHz Q6600 is possible, but it doesn't happen with every chip, no matter the cooling. With my old Q6600 I couldn't break 3.7 on my water setup (Fuzion, PA120.3, DDC+ Petras top). I shouldn't say that I couldn't, but I was already at 1.45 volts, and I didn't want to go any higher than that. It all depends on the chip.

A couple of corrections to your post however. 5.4GHz with a Q9650 hasn't happened yet. I think you are talking about 4.5, which is possible, but again, chip dependent. Also lapping a Fuzion V2 is a bad idea, since the slight bow that is in the block helps temps.