• 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.

Q6600 still good enough?

wam7 said:
That is too much of a sweeping generalisation. People tend to know exactly what they need from a system and for many the Q6600 is still perfectly adequate. It will achieve 60fps with a decent graphics card (i.e. 5850 +) in the majority of games and for many this is more than good enough.
Click to expand...

60fps is weak, It will not do 60fps minimum in the loads of newer games...

Heck I bet it'll struggle with 30fps minimum in newer games..
 
almighty151986 said:
60fps is weak, It will not do 60fps minimum in the loads of newer games...

Heck I bet it'll struggle with 30fps minimum in newer games..
Click to expand...
You really should not assert your opinions as fact or generalise as much as you do. For you 60fps is weak, then say that; though there are many that would disagree and for them 60fps is perfectly smooth and acceptable. I dare say for those people that don't have Fraps running in one corner that anything above 40fps and they would not really notice the difference. This is just my opinion.
 
I have a q6600 4gb system. Play fine at 2560x1440. tried Paradise city at full, black op native res not full details but looks very good. Still i've had my machine for over 4 years and its time to upgrade too. Already got 16gb RAM should be getting all the other stuff soon, M4 SSD, 7970, should be a nice upgrade.
 
wam7 said:
You really should not assert your opinions as fact or generalise as much as you do. For you 60fps is weak, then say that; though there are many that would disagree and for them 60fps is perfectly smooth and acceptable. I dare say for those people that don't have Fraps running in one corner that anything above 40fps and they would not really notice the difference. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
@ Almighty
I am not denying that the Q6600 is old now, but it still runs my games smooth, so what is the point of upgrading it?, to just see a difference in benchmarks and little or no difference in my games.
The SB cpu's are way faster, but imo there would hardly be any difference, and to me its not worth upgrading for upgrading sake.
But maybe its just me.
 
Last edited:
j.col said:
Agreed.
@ Almighty
I am not denying that the Q6600 is old now, but it still runs my games smooth, so what is the point of upgrading it?, to just see a difference in benchmarks and little or no difference in my games.
The SB cpu's are way faster, but imo there would hardly be any difference, and to me its not worth upgrading for upgrading sake.
But maybe its just me.
Click to expand...

Long as you only play old games ths is true. On new games the difference is night and day. I upgraded from my Q6600 a few months back after thinking my Q6600 was awesome. But still I went with it, I would never go back to a Q6600 now ever. Difference is night and day on everything. You may think it is smooth on games you play, then you whack in a SB chip and it really is smooth.

BUT, if you are happy, then who cares.
 
MY Q6600 is still fine and dandy. The current generation isn't enough of an upgrade I'd say :p


Honestly waiting to see when I play a game that chokes my setup. Yeah, I don't play on ultra settings, I don't care. You can see through bushes on low.
 
If it does you then it is good enough.

I went from a i3 540 @ 4ghz to a 2500K @ 4.5ghz both with a 6950.. The 6950 bottlenecked them both with games maxed out. 2500K was a waste of money..
 
Atom said:
If it does you then it is good enough.

I went from a i3 540 @ 4ghz to a 2500K @ 4.5ghz both with a 6950.. The 6950 bottlenecked them both with games maxed out. 2500K was a waste of money..
Click to expand...

LOL funniest thing I have seen in ages, well done. Troll on m8
 
Last edited:
almighty151986 said:
60fps is weak, It will not do 60fps minimum in the loads of newer games...

Heck I bet it'll struggle with 30fps minimum in newer games..
Click to expand...

Dont need 60fps minimum if you have v-sync on(if not using 120hz monitor of course!), you just need to have an average around that. Also, about struggling 30fps, tell that to all the people who play BF3 smoothly with this CPU ;)
 
I run BF3 at 1920/1080, high details and my 5850 Toxic @ stock holds an average 57 fps with v-sync on, runs smooth and plays well, no need yet to spend hundreds on a new cpu/mobo and ram :)
 
voorhees1979 said:
LOL funniest thing I have seen in ages, well done. Troll on m8
Click to expand...

Why is somebody a troll if you don't believe their comment.... What is funny about it?

If there is no visual difference in graphics or game play, the 2500K was a waste of money...
 
Maybe I am understanding it wrong but if the 6950 is running at 99% and the cpu cores aren't, is that not holding things back????
 
I upgraded from myQ6600 @3.3ghz with a HD6870 to an [email protected] and my 1mb Super PI scores went from 15seconds to 8 seconds.

other than that not much difference really, some CPU dependent stuff like FSX saw better frames, i did see see an overall improvement in games, but on the whole i just thought to myself how well matched my Q6600 was with my 6870.

Great CPU!
 
I'm currently running a Q6600 @ 3GHz with 4GBs of RAM. It plays BF3 and Skyrim fine but most games seem to be held back more by my GPUs, (2 GTX 260s in SLI). I will however, be upgrading to IB and Kepler when they are both released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom