• 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.

My current OC'd Q6600 @ 3.4 -> 2600k OC'd - how much faster?

Rikki

Rikki

Rikki

Associate
Joined
1 Dec 2004
Posts
2,257
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Hey folks,

I was going to upgrade last year but thanks to the advice on here I held off as SB was just around the corner and you guys said to hang fire.

Now the new chips are about to be on sale to the public I just wanted to ask if I bit the bullet now how much quicker would the new chip be and is it the ideal one to go for over other i7's for speed.

I mainly do video work in HD using AVCHD codecs etc.

Thanks

Rik
 
"How much quicker" is a completely subjective really. Quicker at what? Video encoding? Games? Running SuperPi?
 
"I mainly do video work in HD using AVCHD codecs etc."

Decoding, processing and encoding HD video streams :)
 
Well i always thought, Dont know what the truth is in it, a q6600 overclocked was like phemon II x4 cpu's were as a i7 920 @ stock speeds would perform better in everything including games still clocked lower.

So id say an overclocked q6600 to 3.4 - 3.6 would still be slower or less punchy than a 2600k at stock.

As i said no truth in it or proof its what ive read many times in reviews and benchmarks.
 
Yeah I know it will be better with the new chip, just wondering by a factor of how much really. No point spending big on a new rig to get an extra 25/30% increase for cash outlay plus tinkering time with build and software :)

Cheers for the replies guys, keep em coming!
 
Hi Rikki,
there is a review on Tech Report which compares a broad selection of CPUs, it may help you decide. Looks like you would half the time in encoding.
sculptor;)
 
Well think of it this way (these are rough numbers):

Sandy Bridge is ~15% faster than Nehalem. Nehalem is ~10% faster than Kentsfield. You should be able to clock a Sandy Bridge at 4.6 GHz at least, so that's a 35% clock speed improvement. You get HyperThreading, which gives another ~30% improvement (2nd pass) so in total that's about 90% faster than your current chip. All theory though.

EDIT: Ah yes, Tech Report. This page shows about a 100% improvement of an i7-2600K vs a Q9400 at stock. I'd say that translates to about 90% for you.
 
Last edited:
Looking at that link and adjusting the results to take into account clock speed (I actually used the Q9660 rather than the q6600 for a closer match).. it's doesn't look like that IN GAMES.. to be that much of an advantage. IN ENCODING and other related things, it seems to be a massive improvement.. but maybe that's down to Hyper Threading?

DragonQ> Don't forget to take into account the massive gap in clock speeds of the 2600K and the Q9400 they are testing against :-(
 
Last edited:
Actually if you look at minimum framerates instead of averages it makes a difference in a lot of game titles too. As I've said on other threads my Q6600 really struggles on Arma 2 and this is something I expect my build tomorrow to rectify somewhat.
 
Could you post up tomorrow of your minimums then please of the results in ARMA 2, and if it was worth it etc?
 
Dirty-Blade said:
What about this comparison? At stock speeds that is -

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=287
Click to expand...

From this bench it seems that a stock i7 2600K @3.4Ghz is roughly twice as fast as a stock [email protected] but then there is already a 1Ghz speed difference on top of the SB architecture already being faster clock for clock. But it would be interesting to see if i7 2600K overclocked to 4.6Ghz gives the same performance difference to Q6600 overclocked to 3.4Ghz or 3.6Ghz, hmm.
 
Last edited:
PCM2 said:
Actually if you look at minimum framerates instead of averages it makes a difference in a lot of game titles too. As I've said on other threads my Q6600 really struggles on Arma 2 and this is something I expect my build tomorrow to rectify somewhat.
Click to expand...

Really, even overclocked? What is your Q6600 speed currently at?
 
Good moving holding fire on the upgrade. From a few benchmarks I seen, a overclocked 2600k to 4.5GHz+ is the first chip that is worth considering (on price/performance grounds) as an upgrade to an overclocked Q6600.
 
Scougar said:
Could you post up tomorrow of your minimums then please of the results in ARMA 2, and if it was worth it etc?
Click to expand...

Probably won't have time to do that until Monday. Depends when I can finish the build and when it arrives. May be able to give a quick idea of if it makes a 'noticeable difference' before then though. Basically with the settings I use there were times when the frame rate would dip to under 20fps if the view distance was set to over about 3500m (on Operation Arrowhead and Takistan). Reducing the '3D resolution' made no difference to this number, suggesting it was indeed a CPU bottleneck. For reference my Q6600 could only make it up to 3.2Ghz but even at 3.4Ghz (based on benchmarks I've seen) it should be a substantial difference with the 2500k.

@clv101

Very little between the 2500K at that speed and 2600k at that speed in most instances on games. Considering the price difference the 2500k is probably the golden buy and is why the majority of people have gone for that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom