How slow it my Q6600 compared to more modern CPUs?

Buck890 · 27 Oct 2013 at 09:51

good to hear as im upgrading from a [email protected] to a 4770k in the next couple of weeks and was wondering the same.

NeilF · 27 Oct 2013 at 12:00

starmanwarz said:
I upgraded my Q6600 also at 3.2 with a 4770k last week. Difference is huge. In BF3 I have more than double the fps now.

Retaining the same graphics card?

andy_mk3 · 27 Oct 2013 at 13:33

A few months ago I upgraded from a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz to an i5 2500k @ 4.6GHz, the difference is very noticeable.

It has to be said though, I never had any problems with the Q6600 in games, the FPS was still at playable levels, the i5 has bumped it up a fair bit though and made it a lot smoother.

For an old chip it's still holding up well and still perfectly fine to use today on a budget gaming rig.

NeilF · 27 Oct 2013 at 16:08

andy_mk3 said:
A few months ago I upgraded from a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz to an i5 2500k @ 4.6GHz, the difference is very noticeable.

It has to be said though, I never had any problems with the Q6600 in games, the FPS was still at playable levels, the i5 has bumped it up a fair bit though and made it a lot smoother.

For an old chip it's still holding up well and still perfectly fine to use today on a budget gaming rig.

I'm half thinking of getting a Q9650 and running that at 4+Ghz to tide me over for another year...

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 27 Oct 2013 at 18:03

My 9550 at 4ghz rolls over and dies when I tried playing bf4, so much so barring a miracle in optimisation it ain't happening. Not what I would be spending money on now.

NeilF · 27 Oct 2013 at 18:14

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
My 9550 at 4ghz rolls over and dies when I tried playing bf4, so much so barring a miracle in optimisation it ain't happening. Not what I would be spending money on now.

So the newer i5's and i7's work some magic the older chips just can't?

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 27 Oct 2013 at 19:44

Mine plays bf3 fine on low/off (feel some slow down in 64 player maps) and any number of other games, but bf4 was a painful experience even after the last beta patches. Now it was still a beta so some hope yet but I haven't ordered the game having played the beta and I've played every bf game since BF1942.

No "magic" involved but sandy onwards offer a lot of cpu for the money, as does the 8320 for a new budget build.

Its an old chip and thankfully things are moving forward.

NeilF · 27 Oct 2013 at 19:53

^ So a Q9650 would be £80-100 poorly spent, and better directed into a more modern CPU when the time comes... OK

andy_mk3 · 27 Oct 2013 at 19:56

I could play BF3 on Ultra @ 1080p with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz and a HD 6950, average fps was in the 40's.

NeilF · 27 Oct 2013 at 20:07

andy_mk3 said:
I could play BF3 on Ultra @ 1080p with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz and a HD 6950, average fps was in the 40's.

So is it moer down to graphics card then? Were other folks with problems using lesser cards?

But anyway, it does seem that a Q6600->Q9500 with only be a 20% or so speed improvement, where as a total new CPU next year would be 50->100% at rough approximations... So the money would be better spent in that direction I feel

starmanwarz · 27 Oct 2013 at 20:08

NeilFawcett said:
Retaining the same graphics card?

Yeah, waiting for 780ti.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 27 Oct 2013 at 20:56

andy_mk3 said:
I could play BF3 on Ultra @ 1080p with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz and a HD 6950, average fps was in the 40's.

My q9550 and my own HD6950 could play on ultra but those sort of fps would be hopeless on multiplayer not to mention 64 player maps. Everything on low/off except mesh, caspian border 64 players and it still drops to 40 odd fps so goodness knows what ultra would do to it.

OP as you said your money is better spent on new board etc

andy_mk3 · 27 Oct 2013 at 21:04

Interesting, mine was just fine in 64 player maps. It never ever dropped below 30!

murah · 28 Oct 2013 at 16:46

More than you will EVER realize until you switch. I went from a 3.2ghz dual core (E8xx) to the build I have now..wow it was such a huge jump

NeilF · 28 Oct 2013 at 16:55

So side question...

If I upgrade first half of next year? What socket/CPU are we looking at? I7 Haswell thingy? Or is there something else (socket/CPU) on the horizon - I've not seen anything via a google?

unclepablo · 29 Oct 2013 at 08:35

Thanks for the information guys. I've been pondering an upgrade from my 3.6Ghz Q6600 but couldn't find any real life gaming benchmarks/user feedback so didn't know if it was affecting my fps with my 2GB 6950.

I'm all about avoiding low (min) fps so an upgrade is on the way..

How much do you think my old Q6600 chip, mb and 4GB is worth? £100 ?

MrMarvelous · 29 Oct 2013 at 12:43

Q6600 v.s 4770K.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/53?vs=836

NeilF · 29 Oct 2013 at 13:12

MrMarvelous said:
Q6600 v.s 4770K.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/53?vs=836

Alas none of those figures mean much to me. My machine is fast enough for everything I do non-game wise. So my only real interest is how much faster (using a similar med/high end graphics card) the I7 would increase FPS

starmanwarz - Implies x2 at least in some games... Which is interesting...

As long as it's at least that I'm interested. I'd hate to spend loads and find out I only get 30-50% more FPS in modern games...

MrMarvelous · 29 Oct 2013 at 13:19

NeilFawcett said:
Alas none of those figures mean much to me. My machine is fast enough for everything I do non-game wise. So my only real interest is how much faster (using a similar med/high end graphics card) the I7 would increase FPS

This is more relevant to your needs then. The 4700K pretty much poops from a great height on it.

http://www.legitreviews.com/upgrading-from-intel-core-2-quad-q6600-to-core-i7-4770k_2247

NeilF · 29 Oct 2013 at 13:32

MrMarvelous said:
This is more relevant to your needs then. The 4700K pretty much poops from a great height on it.

http://www.legitreviews.com/upgrading-from-intel-core-2-quad-q6600-to-core-i7-4770k_2247

Some of those charts suggest the exact opposite. Those figures make an upgrade for me look utterly worthless...?

Battlefield 3, medium settings, 1920x1200:-

Q6600 = 72fps
I7 = 78fps

Battlefield 3, ultra settings, 1920x1200:-

Q6600 = 45fps
I7 = 48fps

So hundreds of pounds of expense for a under 10% improvement?

That's VERY worrying!

The only significant improvement I could find was:-

Metro Last, highest settings, 1920x1200:-
Q6600 = 33
I7 = 51

That doesn't seem to back up starmanwarz's suggestion BF3 doubled in speed!?