I'm curious to know how TG figured they reached 4.2GHz or 4.3GHz. Has something in the forumula changed for Wolfdale? By my calculations, 443x9=3.987GHz, and 453x9=4.077GHz. All they had to do was run something, like SuperPi, to temporarily shut down speed stepping and show actual figures on CPUZ. This would have also showed a little system stability.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/19/wolfdale_on_steroids/page5.html#final_step_43_ghz_fsb1812
The mass majority of software and games still doesn't use 2 cores effectively, let alone 4.
But if I were to buy a quad, it would be a Q6400 before spending the extra $100 on the Q6600. Unfortunately the Q6400 isn't available in my country (probably a gimmick to use up the E6400/E6420s in the USA), and I've been much less than impressed with the Q6600.
Bottom line is that everyone has to take their own usage into consideration when choosing their CPU. If you mainly use apps or mainly play one of the few games that can use 4 cores, get a quad. You'll have better overall results this way.
Most ppl don't use many (if any) apps or games that will use 4 cores and will get better performance from a C2D or Wolfdale than a quad in the long run, not to mention save a bit of $.
I guarantee a E6750 at stock speeds will spank a stock Q6600 on any app that doesn't use multiple cores. The quad's shared cache makes very little difference for most apps. The same goes for overclocked versions of both CPUs.
Even GO stepping Q6600s were lucky to ever see 3.6GHz stable and run too hot at that speed to be run there daily (without water cooling). The extra cores put out a significant amount of heat, and the 4 cores make the chances of reaching high OCs twice as unlikely. Most can't get much over 3.2GHz and remain stable, and all aren't much of a difference from the B3 stepping models.
Every E6750 will easily do 3.6GHz on the stock cooling, and I've yet to find one that won't do 4.0GHz with aftermarket air coolers, but again wouldn't run them above 3.8GHz or so because of heat issues. Anyone that doesn't think 3.2 to 3.8GHz is a substantial difference doesn't know much about Intel systems and their memory controllers. The higher the FSB goes on an Intel system, the better the overall system performance.
Water cooling gives the Q6600 somewhat better results but doesn't effect the E6750/E6800/E6850 much. A GO stepping Q6600 on water will still be very lucky to match the overall overclocking of a GO stepping E6750 on air.
So again, it all comes down to what you use your computer for (multi-core apps vs single-core apps). But then I've only had about 500 of each CPU in house to test so far, so I'm sure someone who's used a couple of one or the other knows more about them than I.
I found the results of the Wolfdale impressive. While my own system has achieved 4.12GHz on air with a E6750, the (claimed, but not shown) 4.2GHz-4.3GHz of the Wolfdale doesn't seem all that impressive. However the performance per GHz is a nice improvement. I'll definitely be using Wolfdale for my own systems rather than wasting money on a quad for the time being. I have about 50 games (none are FPS or shoot-em-up), not one uses 4 cores. I use only a few apps that use multiple cores, (encoding mostly) and don't use them enough to warrant slowing down everything else I do. Many people were saying software would be caught up by now with multi-core versions when quads first came out. They were wrong. Software may catch up tomorrow, or may not catch up for another 5 years or more. We'll see.