e8600 for a q9450

Shouldn't have done it in the first place...were you actually expecting stuff to run faster on that quad than on a 4.4ghz dual? What apps do you use that use quad-core? I'm expecting the answer "none"...

3.4ghz is low for a quad really 45nm my q6600 hits 3.7 easy and will do 4ghz if i wanna run close to 1.5 vcore.

what does it matter what os im using?

I can see where you were lead astray on some of these threads, I too have been following the quad versus dual debate, and it seems like most people are just telling you to buy exactly what they bought. I think everyone got reeled into the idea of a quad core, I mean it does sound like a logical progression, but in reality it is just the mhz that matter. I mean there is always a trade off somewhere, if they could both clock the same, quad would be the way to go, but there is a speed at which a higher clocked dual will beat a lower clocked quad even at multi-threaded apps. Since games can basically make no use of quad cores now and into the foreseeable future (yeah I'm looking at you far cry 2), u will always be better off whichever clocks higher. I kind of have my eye on core i7, for the chance that that they can clock really high, guess we'll find out in the next couple days.

I hope you didn't expect your overclock on a Q9450 to come anywhere close to your old E8600. Your 4.4GHz overclock was a 32% overclock. Your 3.4GHz overclock is a 27.5% overclock. This seems about right to me. And I wouldn't expect things to run faster with a slower clock, but I would expect things to run smoother thanks to having four cores.

If you want a quad to approach the clock speeds you achieved with your old E8600, you'll want a Q9650. I would wait until the price comes down to the Q9550's neighborhood.

I would have done it. You need @ least a 3.8GHz Quad to mach a 4.4GHz in games and stuff. 3.4GHz is just to low for a Quad for you point of view. Also i would save money for a Q9650 cause they seem to clock well to 4-4.2Ghz with air.