Another Q6600 thread!!!

[samartin]

OK, I'm currently running a 6600, 1st gen and happily running at 2.88ghz at the mo'. I do lot's of 3D work which require 100% CPU loads, I know the Q6600 is roughly twice as fast so a 30s frame render would come down to 15s That would be well sweet. But...

at the moment it's not really a problem as I can render animations over night I'm not currently rendering things like environments so renders are pretty rapid. I use the 360 for games so Ghz is not important to me, more cores the better with overclocking ability.

So in this predicament what would you do? Hold off for Penryn? (new instruction sets might increase performance another two-fold for example). I can wait until early-mid next year...

 

[Yiuca]

If you can wait, then wait, I mean I've went with the Q6600 now, I'd say the more cores the more heat the less overclocking ability, although the Q6600 can apparantly make it to 3Ghz on stock voltage & as long as it has a good cooler can go even further, the more Ghz is important for faster speeds too you know!

With that said if you are concious that you get a Q6600 & will feel dissapointed if Penryn arrives with something that takes advantage of new instruction sets which will improve performance by such a large margin, then I guess you should wait, I myself don't feel like I will entirely benefit from Penryn hence why I've went with the Q6600 G0 now instead.

 

[Pneumonic]

Q6600 G0 should run happily @ 3.2ghz on stock heatsink and will a little more volts

 

[Cecco]

I'm in a similar situation, but I use my pc mainly for gaming and most of all Flight Simulator X.

I'll probably go with the Q6600, good or bad idea?

 

[Yiuca]

I'm in a similar situation, but I use my pc mainly for gaming and most of all Flight Simulator X.

I'll probably go with the Q6600, good or bad idea?

Good perhaps for other games Flight Simulator X doesn't take the best advantage of dualcores apparantly, on a chart I saw when measured that Flight Simulator X only had 7% performance improve from Single core to Dual core & near no difference from Dual to Quad, however some other things were showing around 80-90% improvement when it were Quad vs Dual, I personally think it's worth it, fair few programs out that benefit now & will be even more in future... Games included.

 

[weescott]

If you can wait, wait until the Q9450 is lauched. 3.5Ghz on stock cooling. Which equates to a 3.8 to 4ghz Q6600.

 

[Pneumonic]

Any idea on the price of those weescott?

 

[weescott]

From a pricelist I seen on another site. c£200, but don't quote me on that.

 

[Kelt]

Any idea on the price of those weescott?

They should be around the same price (probably a few quid more) as the current Q6600...good sign is, I've seen the new QX9650 being listed literally just twenty odd quid away from its current equivalent, the QX6850.

I'm in the market for a new PC, having to struggle not to buy the Q6600 instead of waiting for the Q9450...

 

[samartin]

If you can wait, wait until the Q9450 is lauched. 3.5Ghz on stock cooling. Which equates to a 3.8 to 4ghz Q6600.

Would this be the Penryn generation?

SSE3 when implemented in certain software gave a huge performance boost (talking Lightwave and GI here). So I'm kind of expecting that SSE4 will give boosts yet again...

 

[Pneumonic]

Very tempting at £200 to upgrade

 

[weescott]

This is what the Q9450 should be cabable of (Q9550 with Q9450 multi) with stock cooling:

 

[Kelt]

That's made my mind up! Think I'm going to get an E2180 and overclock the nuts off it until the Q9450 is out!