Quote Originally Posted by Simps View Post
Ok, I read that review and I found this:

Both CPU's were running on stock multipliers during the tests.

- Q6600 was running at 9.0 x 400FSB = 3.6GHz
- Q9300 was running at 7.5 x 467FSB = 3.5GHz

Just in case you don't know, you just can't compare the processors like that. That is why that review is trash.

In that review:

- Q6600 has the 100MHz raw clock advantage
- Q9300 has the advantage of a 67MHz higher FSB, AND A MUCH HIGHER CLOCKED MEMORY, since they were both on the same strap and divisor.

So, that review is garbage, is not apples to apples, you can't conclude anything from that review.
One way to compare both CPU's, for example, would be to set both of them to 3.5GHz (7x500). Both CPU's can handle a 7 multiplier and a 3.5GHz clock. And then since the FSB is the same, the memory speed would be the same too.

When a user posts a sh/t review like that, trying to make a point, is because he has no idea of what is going on.
[]'s
Simps
Man where did all the &$^%ing ^%$ come from around here? It was SPECULATION. I gave the link because it wasn't meant as an Apples to Apples comparison. When you assume stuff you end up being the first 3 letters of the word.

Theory is OK, but these are two selling products, no, you don't handicap one for the sake of theory. Then you make a Ding Bat assumption from one review, then take something out of CONTEXT! Then add insult to injury, you draw poor conclusions, something WRONGLY accuse me of.

Quote Originally Posted by drizzt5
How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?
The consensus was wait for the reviews!