• 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.

How Much Faster (Real World Performance) Is the i7-2600k Over A Q6600? (old quad core from 2007)

LEE929394

LEE929394

LEE929394

Associate
Joined
26 Jun 2007
Posts
139
Location
London
Hi all

Haven't upgraded in over 4 years and want to get a killer gaming rig as i feel any half decent graphics card in my present rig is getting bottlenecked severely by my Q6600 (i'm assuming this is the case)

I'm going for the i7-2600k hoping it's a good price per performance ratio.

In some performance & benchmark comparison charts i see the i7-2600k is around 3 times as fast as the q6600, in real world performance does 3 times as fast sound about right?

Was thinking of keeping my q6600 overclocked at 3.2ghz but feel it's long overdue for an upgrade!

I'm a little confused as the clock speeds between my overclocked q6600 and i7 2600k aren't that much different. What is it about the i7's that make them so much faster? Cache, turbo boost, improved architecture on the whole?

Thanks.
 
i cant really answer any of your questions except i had a similar situation, had a new graphics card and my stock q6600 was bottlenecking, so i changed to an i5 2500k (along with motherboard etc) and the difference from the q6600 is immense! especially in games!

and apparently the 2500k has great o/cing potential!

so i know its not info about your i7 but just from a previous 6600 owner, its worth the upgrade i reckon
 
kinger8938 said:
i cant really answer any of your questions except i had a similar situation, had a new graphics card and my stock q6600 was bottlenecking, so i changed to an i5 2500k (along with motherboard etc) and the difference from the q6600 is immense! especially in games!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. When you say immense are we talking a 25%, even 50% increase in frame rates?

I always felt my aging ATI 5850 was always quite slow probably because of the large bottleneck from the Q6600.
 
I also have a q6600 - OCed to 3.4Ghz 24/7 clock. It's by no means redundant! I always thought I was bottlenecked by my GPU in most games (GTX 460 1Gb @ 825 core).
 
It's only really a bottleneck in cpu dependant games, 3.6 is easily achievable on most of the Q6600's as long as you have sufficient cooling. I'd wait and not scratch that itch quite yet and see what bulldozer has to offer, its not far off, and whats another month, you've lasted this long! Incidentally I have the same CPU but at 3.8ghz and I find it still more than adequate for all the games I play (bc2 etc)
 
the Q6600 may be the bottleneck in certain CPU-intensive games - such as starcraft 2. but in many games it will still be sufficient that the graphics card will be the bottleneck. basically, you'll notice a big difference in some games, none in others

as for why the 2600k is so much faster, it's a combination of:

faster stock clocks (and faster OC capability)
more efficient architecture (more done per clock)
more chache
hyperthreading
support for more instruction sets
quick sync

anf probably more improvements of which i am not aware
 
Interesting have same cpu mines clocked at 3.2 an same gpu ati 5850.
Have this in my main atx tower system which used for gaming dont see the the need to upgrade yet but may sometime in 2012.
Have some spare money thou an have been looking at getting another i5 2500k itx system still waiting for parts mainly the case an a better Mobo.
Next few months should be interesting times with bulldozer you should wait an see what happens.
 
I'm also tempted with a CPU upgrade (Q6600 @ 3.3) with a OC'd GTX480

but I'm still not completelyconvinced I'm CPU limited in games

put it this way if I vary my CPU overclock from say 3.1 up to 3.55 gig I don't really notice any difference in games

yet any overclock of my GPU I notice a difference in frame rates in games

that implies to me - that even with my GTX480 in the majority of current games I'm GPU limited not CPU limited
 
If it's for gaming, you should be able to see about at least a minimum of 1.2x improvement depending on the games you play (latest games are becoming more GPU dependant). This is for the 2500K. It's absolutely pointless getting the 2600K over the 2500K if you're only gaming as current games will never take advantage of hyperthreading.

The Sandy Bridge CPUs are based on a completely different architecture compared to the old Core series, allowing them to do more work per clock. It's like saying the Core series is a normal average car, with Sandy Bridge being a double decker bus. A very quick double decker bus running past the national speed limit considering the i5/i7 can be overclocked to 5ghz...
 
Last edited:
I've love it to be true though :)

most new games I average 50-60fps at max settings with FSAA at 8 or 16x

if that was to increase to 75-90 fps - by just upgrading CPU/mobo I'd upgrade tomorrow

when theres in-game benchmarks - like Crysis 2 - with my 480 I was benching around 10-15% max lower average frame rate wise vs I5s at >4.4 gig

which isn't a lot really :(
 
aha - 20% - yes I'd agree with that

especially if you added "up to" before it - "up to 20% better"

that said some games I'd see a big benefit in for instance FSX and Arma 2

is it worth a full cpu/mobo upgrade for those games ?prob not

I am still consdiering upgrading next month though ... you may ask why ....

well its not for performance, but I'm an overclock/can't stop fiddling with settings fanatic - and tbh - after 5 years (!!!!) with the same mobo and 3 years with the same CPU ... I'mgetting a bit bored !!

one thing I do notice though is that although frame rates wise it doesn't make a lot of difference, running mem at faster speed seems to make games feel smoother

so at 3.55 gig I have to run my RAM@ 770 4-4-4-12, but at 3.4 gig I can run my 6 gig of RAM at 1140 5-5-5-15 - the latter setup overall seems better
 
Last edited:
To be honest the difference varies a lot, I've been looking into it as you can get a mobo\G0 stepping Q6600 and RAM for about £120 second hand now. And considering I'm looking to buy a new system, I was checking out the performance difference.

People who are laughing at a 50% performance difference, its there in some things actually!

Games seem to get a 1/3 Performance boost, and thats just at stock speeds.

Rendering wise you're talking a good 100% speed increase, Photoshop too

Encoding\transcoding again about a 100% performance increase.

At stock! I have no idea what overclocking both processors to their maximum capabilities would do to the results
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned - only prob often in games benchmarks - you'll see Q6600s against I5s - both at stock - and in quite a few games - the Q6600 will be CPU limited at that speed

I think though as you get above around 3.2 gig on a Quad-core - games become much less CPU limited

btw- other reason for considering an upgrade sometime soon - is the thought that at least CPU/RAM/Mobo/old GPU (4890) would still have some value

IE if I could get £170 for all 3,that'd make a sandy upgrade around 200 quid

so thats worth factoring in
 
the benchmarks are all artificially constructed to differentiate as much as possible between the CPUs. they run games at 1024x768 on minimum graphics settings, to make it CPU limited. in reality, in ~80% of games running at normal settings the Q6600 will NOT be the bottleneck, unless you have a 6970/6990 or similar
 
Buckster said:
I've love it to be true though :)

most new games I average 50-60fps at max settings with FSAA at 8 or 16x

if that was to increase to 75-90 fps - by just upgrading CPU/mobo I'd upgrade tomorrow

when theres in-game benchmarks - like Crysis 2 - with my 480 I was benching around 10-15% max lower average frame rate wise vs I5s at >4.4 gig

which isn't a lot really :(
Click to expand...

no offence but what the hell is wrong with 50 - 60FPS at maximum settings with FSAA, what the hell am I missing? everyone seems so pointlessly obsessed with that little frame-rate counter in the corner, would be surprised in most games if there is a obvious difference between 60FPS and 75FPS to be honest, seems like a bit of a pointless waste of time and effort for a probably insignificant 'actual' improvement (ignoring the FPS counter of course!). :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom