What would you do?

[Jon20]

I've currently got a Q6600 G0 CPU and I'm looking to upgrade. I've been looking at the:

E8600 E0 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-232-IN

and the

Q9550 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-203-IN

I mainly use the computer for web browsing, the very occasional bit of light photo editing and for gaming (WIC, GRID, Crysis etc). I know some people will suggest to overclock the Q6600, but I a) have no idea how to do it and b) I'm looking for a more energy efficient CPU. Now obviously I don't want to make the wrong choice and I know there's the whole dual core vs quad core debate, but what would you buy?

Thanks.

 

[Wayne~]

Is the Q6600 overclocked? If it isn;t then get it done and you won't notice any difference within changing chips.

 

[Kalpsn2000]

Overclock the Q6600!

Getting it up to 3Ghz is easy and will only take 5 mins in the bios.

Take a look at the guide here

 

[Major_Disaster]

As above. Overclock the CPU. Or if you want to spend some cash, get a decent after market cooler and maybe some RAM / GFX card etc

 

[platinum87]

ive seen the watt usage and the differences are minimal, between a quad and dual at 3ghz..

If youve got a Q6600, try to overclock it, make a post if you need to, and check that guide in post number 3

if you dont overclock the E8600 its a waste, i wouldnt be happy unless i was to get 4.5ghz.

same for the Q9550.. so unless you plan to overclock beyond 4Ghz stick with the Q6600

FYI, a Q6600 overclocked at 3.0ghz will be as fast as a Q9550 at stock (2.8ghz) if not faster

 

[Kelt]

If you've got good cooling, overclock the nutz off it!

Save your upgrade money for i7.

 

[eyetrip]

Having played with many different processors in the last while seeing what is best, including e4300 @ 3GHz, Q6600 @ Stock and 3.2GHz, e8500 @ Stock and 3.8GHz, e5200 @ Stock and 3.8GHz, I have stuck with the Q6600 at 3.2GHz.

Windows is generally a bit snappier, especially for someone like me with many processes running in the background. It's not hugely better, but just a bit more responsive.

As far as gaming is concerned, I noticed very little difference with these processors from 3GHz and up. A Q6600 at stock is not great for gaming though - it's not bad, but certain games such as Crysis and ET:QW showed huge gains form OCing the quad to 3.2GHz. And I noticed very little diff between a Q6600 at 3.2GHz and an e8500 at 3.8GHz.

Don't bother upgrading until there is something out which is significantly faster than what you have and your current CPU is struggling with something. I have wasted so much time and money in pursuit of minor changes that it's just not funny.

Edit: I would say don't worry too much about the power draw of a Q6600 at 3GHz - it's not going to be that much higher than Q9550 that it would drop your electric bills much.

OCing the Q6600 is fairly easy to around 3GHz, and there are plenty of people here who can help if you decide to go that route.

 

[Vir]

Overclocking really makes a difference.

Most people I start talking with on the overclocking subject they all think it's gonna fry their cpu within 1 week, that there is no performance gain and that it is very difficult, boy are they wrong. In all seriousness, overclock your cpu. It's cheap, makes your computer very fast if done properly and can be really fun!

 

[Kelt]

Having played with many different processors in the last while seeing what is best, including e4300 @ 3GHz, Q6600 @ Stock and 3.2GHz, e8500 @ Stock and 3.8GHz, e5200 @ Stock and 3.8GHz, I have stuck with the Q6600 at 3.2GHz.

Windows is generally a bit snappier, especially for someone like me with many processes running in the background. It's not hugely better, but just a bit more responsive.

As far as gaming is concerned, I noticed very little difference with these processors from 3GHz and up. A Q6600 at stock is not great for gaming though - it's not bad, but certain games such as Crysis and ET:QW showed huge gains form OCing the quad to 3.2GHz. And I noticed very little diff between a Q6600 at 3.2GHz and an e8500 at 3.8GHz.

Don't bother upgrading until there is something out which is significantly faster than what you have and your current CPU is struggling with something. I have wasted so much time and money in pursuit of minor changes that it's just not funny.

Edit: I would say don't worry too much about the power draw of a Q6600 at 3GHz - it's not going to be that much higher than Q9550 that it would drop your electric bills much.

OCing the Q6600 is fairly easy to around 3GHz, and there are plenty of people here who can help if you decide to go that route.

Interesting to read comments from somebody who's run a number of different chips. I'm currently testing my Q6600 at 3000Mhz with just 1.152V under Prime95 load. I'm doing this because it will probably end up as a HTPC chip, and I want to see how low I could under volt it whilst still getting a reasonable clock. I ran 3dmark06 and got 14537 with my 8800GT. Running it at 3600Mhz with 1.36V under load got me 15779.

Point is to the OP, it's well worth experimenting with your Q6600, you might be surprised at what it can do!

 

[jrwagh333]

yes the Q6600 has been said to be the best CPU EVER made. I don't know much about overclocking but just change 1 setting in the BIOS and it was running stable at 3GHz

 

[Kelt]

yes the Q6600 has been said to be the best CPU EVER made. I don't know much about overclocking but just change 1 setting in the BIOS and it was running stable at 3GHz

Yep, early testing I know, but I'm well impressed with a quad core chip that can run at 3000Mhz with only 1.15 volts!

 

[eyetrip]

Interesting to read comments from somebody who's run a number of different chips. I'm currently testing my Q6600 at 3000Mhz with just 1.152V under Prime95 load. I'm doing this because it will probably end up as a HTPC chip, and I want to see how low I could under volt it whilst still getting a reasonable clock. I ran 3dmark06 and got 14537 with my 8800GT. Running it at 3600Mhz with 1.36V under load got me 15779.

Point is to the OP, it's well worth experimenting with your Q6600, you might be surprised at what it can do!

Mine takes 1.425 for 3.2GHz

Its not a very good clocker at all, but I am not going to buy another in the hopes of finding one better. Hopefully by the time a 3.2GHz quad is too slow, there will be something considerably faster at around the q6600's current price point.

Hoping to keep my system as it is until 2010... which is a real challenge for me

 

[Vir]

Mine takes 1.425 for 3.2GHz

Its not a very good clocker at all, but I am not going to buy another in the hopes of finding one better. Hopefully by the time a 3.2GHz quad is too slow, there will be something considerably faster at around the q6600's current price point.

Hoping to keep my system as it is until 2010... which is a real challenge for me

I bet you won't make it with that system till 2010