I agree with runwaway prisoner about this.
Personally, I think the difference between Q6600 and Q6700 isn't worth it. Since both are 65nm CPU's, once you get to about 3.6GHz, that will be about the highest you can get, since the temperature becomes the limiting factor (I'm assuming using high end air).
If you have water or other exotic cooling, then either chip could probably go higher, and the Q6700 might edge out the Q6600 since it should be binned higher (but maybe not, you never know)
The Q9450, being 45nm, will present a different problem. Since it has a low x8 multi, you will be limited by how high you mobo can raise the FSB speed. For most boards (without running really high voltages), it seems that 3.2-3.6 is the limit. The CPU can do more, but the motherboard can't.
So to sum it up (IMHO):
No overclock = Q9450 -> cooler and faster then Q6600 stock
"easy" 3.2-3.4GHz OC = Q9450 -> either CPU can hit 3.2-ish, but the Q9450 will be cooler, have SSE4 if you ever need it, and will be slightly faster then a Q6600 at same OC speed.
(as a subset) "easy budget" OC = Q6600 => $200 for 3GHz+ quad if you want to save money. Probably won't notice the difference between it and a Q9450 anyway.
"extreme" max-out OC (using water, etc...) = Q6600 -> Better cooling will let you run it higher, *maybe* close to 4Gig. Lower FSB speeds needed will let you max out the CPU before the mobo. But you need water or better to keep the CPU cool enough to go to the higher clocks. I don't see the Q9450 in this category unless/until we get some motherboards that can hit 475+MHZ FSB speed.
Facebook
Twitter