• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Why's the Intel Q6600 So Popular?

From wikipedia.

The mainstream Core 2 Quad Q6600, clocked at 2.4 GHz, was launched on January 8, 2007 at US$851 (reduced to US$530 on April 7, 2007). July 22, 2007 marked the release of the Q6700, and Extreme QX6850 Kentsfields at US$530 and US$999 respectively along with a further price reduction of the Q6600 to US$266.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
 
The Q6600 G0 edition should use a lot less power then the originals as it's on the 45nm process isn't it?
 
The power consumption of one of these things when overclocked is what is really putting me off buying one... I use a mountain of electricity at work and I don't pay the bills there yet still feel bad!
 
I personally dont run mine at 3.6 all the time, more often i have it at a modest 3.0ghz whch itll do on stock volts.
 
Ill keep this one for a while longer (would like to see if i could push it to 3.8ghz or so) then probably replace it with a more up to date chip.
 
It was popular because it sat in a price-performance slot.
Just like the 5200 sits as the budget bang for buck cpu whatever is the fastest best clocking cpu in £50-£100 ish £100-£150 ish will always be the most popular until it is surpassed.

The q6600 was beating cpu's that cost more than it when clocked simple as that.
 
Last edited:
its a good chip, but you want a 45nm. even just a e8400 e0 stepping. They clock to about 4ghz are the same cost (well not exact but few pounds in it) better at everyday applications (games) cooler and less power.

I had a q6600 in my lanbox swapped it out for a e8400, much better. q6600 now sits in my server.
 
Clock for clock, the 45nm Yorkfields are quicker, but considering I picked mine up 6 months ago for £116 inc VAT and have it running at 3.5GHz 24/7 - its way better bang for buck than the Q9*** imo. I have a mate who runs a Q9300 and can't get it past 3.0GHz stable due to some ridiculous multiplier.

Add the Q6600 to a water cooling setup and you're looking at 3.8-4.0GHz, all that for £120~ That surely must give a stock QX9770 a run for its money?
 
When all the latest tech i7 guys ditch the Yorkfield boat, I'll grab one of those second hand and pop it in my system :)
 
redballoon said:
From a techreport article showing power efficiency - http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/15




The Q6600 more than holds it's own as an efficient CPU, no one runs Linpack 24/7 365 days a year either. Stop trolling Q6600 threads with the same old crap.
Click to expand...

My current CPU is the amd athlon 6400+ and by that chart the Q6600 will be huge drop in power so in no way does the intel Q6600 use a lot of power. By this chart it will roughly halve the power consumption of my computer
 
I have owned both CPU's. First the Q6600 and now currently the Q9550.

Yes for the money the Q6600 is whey better " bang for buck " but it does honestly lag behind the Q9550. The 12MB catch is an advantage and the inclusion of SSE4.1 in the CPU commands is something the Q6600 can not offer.

I am glad i upgraded to the Q9550 personally , but for anyone wanting a very high end system on a budget it would not resist to recommend the Q6600 to them as its still a great CPU.

The Q9770 is a different animal. I think it would obliterate the Q6600 personally.

Just my opinion.

McT
 
Good to see some actual evidence on how much power the Q6600 uses. I've read a lot of comments saying it drinks more than George Best did, so I've been a bit confused.
 
metamorphpwner said:
My current CPU is the amd athlon 6400+ and by that chart the Q6600 will be huge drop in power so in no way does the intel Q6600 use a lot of power. By this chart it will roughly halve the power consumption of my computer
Click to expand...


Power consumption only though.

It will destroy a X26400 in all other areas ( maybe apart from transcoding video )

Prior to having a Q6600 i used the x2 6000. Massive difference with Quad. :)
 
If you really want an efficient processor get an Atom. Generally speaking older PC's use way more power for the performance they deliver, and modern CPUs and motherboards actually include power saving features unlike old tech. The choice is obvious extreme efficiency - Atom, or extreme performance Q6600(or other modern processor). Sitting in the middle you'll get rogered and generally speaking there is very little difference between processors, no more then a few quid on the bill anyway. You will destroy the planet though...but as long as I am fragging with my shottie on COD4 I couldn't really give a toss.
 
redballoon said:
The Q6600 more than holds it's own as an efficient CPU, no one runs Linpack 24/7 365 days a year either. Stop trolling Q6600 threads with the same old crap.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the same sets of graphs with the Q6600 at a decent clock.. it is a great CPU dont get me wrong but once you start pushing them they eat leccy like it is going out of fashion..

A highly overclock Q6600 can easily be eating 200+ watts hense why the buggers are so damm hard to cool once you start pushing the mhz..

And people do run @ full load 24/7 mine do..
 
Last edited:
Pneumonic said:
I would like to see the same sets of graphs with the Q6600 at a decent clock.. it is a great CPU dont get me wrong but once you start pushing them they eat leccy like it is going out of fashion..

A highly overclock Q6600 can easily be eating 200+ watts hense why the buggers are so damm hard to cool once you start pushing the mhz..

And people do run @ full load 24/7 mine do..
Click to expand...

well, obviously when you push more volts through it to overclock, you are going to use more power. will that double the usage of power? say at 3.6Ghz?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom