I'd probably have a better CPU and/or PSU. For a budget, if it does what you need, that's all that matters. I had the same motherboard in a secondary PC before, and it started with a Pentium Dual-core E2160 in it (1.8GHz stock). Even overclocked to 2.7GHz, a stock Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.0GHz stock) felt much faster (though the former also held it's own). I imagine the CPU will become a growing bottleneck as time moves on. That being dsaid, those are still nice budget CPUs, and as long as it works for you, then hey.
Originally Posted by mrfusion87
correct me if im wrong. unless a game uses quad cores...my CPU hammers yours if I clock it past 4Ghz (does it in its sleep)
Not quite. Even in situations that don't get benefit from more than two cores, his CPU not only doesn't get "hammered" by yours (even if it was faster, it wouldn't be by that much), but I wager his would be faster most of the time. The Celeron CPUs lack L2 cache, and if you're using a higher multiplier like those often come with, and a lower FSB, at the overclock you have set, then you're getting less performance there too.
Your CPU holds it's own, but it's not exactly a dual core equivalent to the Core 2 Quad Q6600 to where you can say "in games that only need as many cores as both CPUs at least has, mine will be faster".
Edit: I was commenting in regards to your current 3.75GHz overclock compared to the Core 2 Quad Q6600's 3.6GHz overclock. What I said changes a bit past 4GHz, but A) it's not clocked past 4GHz, and B) the rest I said about L2 cache and FSB still apply.
Originally Posted by purpleannex
Er, no. A Q6600 should do 4Ghz too.
Very few Core 2 Quad Q6600s will realistically be at 4GHz in practice. The Core 2 Quad Q6600 was a very mixed bag when it came to overclocking. Some barely got over 3GHz even. I'm finding most being run at around 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, and 3.6GHz as common averages (of course, some will always be higher). Conroe also isn't Wolfdale (that is, the same speed isn't equal between the two anyway), so clock speed alone isn't everything. Although, as I said, the low L2 cache and FSB often work to the Celeron's disadvantage.
Also, that is a single synthetic result, and an arguable one at best. I don't prefer that website. I glanced through the GPU arrangement and the positioning is all over the place versus how the cards should really be situated. I mean, even in the same picture you posted, the Pentium Dual core E5200 is below the Celeron E3300? Really? As with all synthetic benchmarks, take it with a grain of salt. They rank things only according to how they measure them and nothing more.Edited by Princess Garnet - 5/15/11 at 2:46am