Q6600. Go Ivy or wait on Haswell

Energizer Bunny · 16 Jul 2012 at 11:47

Current spec:

Q6600 at stock (I am a simpleton)
Gigabyte p35 DDR2 socket 775 mobo
8gb pc6400 Ram
GTX 470

I've had this setup for about 6 years so its done me very very nicely (that excludes the gfx card which is a little newer). I've got a 26" monitor with a native res of 1900x1200 so need a reasonable amount of graphical grunt. It's only now I can really feel the machine starting to hit its head on the roof of its abilities. I can still play BF3 on high settings at a decent frame rate etc.

However, it does feel like its getting towards time to upgrade the old girl. I recently chucked a couple of 250gb SSDs in there which was a nice upgrade, but whilst I was pleased with the performance I do feel like I'm holding them back by not giving them Sata 3.

So my question is whether it is worth hitting Ivybridge up? I can probably muddle through to Haswell if necessary. I'll probably spend in the £500 region.

Also, does the GFX card need an upgrade? Or would I be better off putting the money there rather than the CPU?

BigBANGtheory · 16 Jul 2012 at 12:17

I'm in a similar situation to you, my take on things is this:

1. Intel are making noise about Haswell IGP performance not CPU, my crystal ball predicts no more than 10% improvement in demmanding games.

2. Intel seem more focused on power consumption and competition from ARM than raising the CPU performance bar.

3. Upgrade when you need not when you want, BF3 runs great but if say Arma3 is suffering when its released then you have to upgrade.

4. There seems to be less and less software pushing the hardware limits.

Upgrade when you have an application that needs the extra power, if that need arises before Haswell then so be it.

Tea_Bag · 16 Jul 2012 at 12:19

for a start, battlefield is not very CPU intensive. I play at 2560*1440 on ultra with a 6990 and my CPU (2500K @ 4.8Ghz) hovers around 50-70% usage. Itd be even lower if I bothered closing all the background apps and hw monitoring tools. my GPU(s) are always 95-100% usage.

it would be worth your while upgrading the GPU to a gtx670 maybe. it'll double you're average fps in BF3 and you would carry it over to future builds. you're going to become bottle necked at the CPU, but if you get a £30 cooler and OC it, there's still a lot of life in the q6600 yet. minimum fps will get a nice boost.

on the Sata3 front, outside of benchmarks, there is little real world difference. I move from an Intel 80gb x25m on a sata2 board to a Samsung 830 128gb on sata3 and on paper its worlds apart but in truth my boot times improved a bit and loading big levels in games seemed quicker. you've already got 95% of the benefits of an SSD over a hdd, being super fast access times.

Freddie1980 · 16 Jul 2012 at 13:35

Tea_Bag said:
for a start, battlefield is not very CPU intensive. I play at 2560*1440 on ultra with a 6990 and my CPU (2500K @ 4.8Ghz) hovers around 50-70% usage. Itd be even lower if I bothered closing all the background apps and hw monitoring tools. my GPU(s) are always 95-100% usage.

How can you say Battlefield isn't very CPU intensive then go on to say the games pushes your 2500K @ 4.8Ghz to 70%??? You might as well as said anything less then a high overclock on SB model CPU or less your going to hit bottleneck at some stage.

NirK · 16 Jul 2012 at 13:38

BF3 is very CPU intensive in MP but not in SP.... Saying it is not CPU intensive is very missleading

Personally I would buy a new heatsink and overclock your Q6600 to 3.3Ghz and then keep it for another year until Haswell comes out and also the next gen consoles which will result in more games which actually use the more powerfull CPU.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 13:50

Tea_Bag said:
for a start, battlefield is not very CPU intensive. I play at 2560*1440 on ultra with a 6990 and my CPU (2500K @ 4.8Ghz) hovers around 50-70% usage. Itd be even lower if I bothered closing all the background apps and hw monitoring tools. my GPU(s) are always 95-100% usage.

You have a 2500K @ 4.8GHz, that's more than twice the computational power of a Q6600!

A Q6600 cannot handle BF3 64-man servers... I know this because I have personal experience of it.

It was one of the factors that made me finally upgrade, despite it having served me well for quite a long time.

To the OP - upgrade when you feel you need to, don't bother waiting for a new release unless it's coming within a month or so. If you feel the need for an upgrade, then go for it. If you don't feel all that held back, wait for Haswell

Q6600 -> Ivy Bridge is a massive upgrade, fantastic improvement in everything - I don't regret purchasing and am certainly not sorry I didn't want to wait for Haswell.

Energizer Bunny · 16 Jul 2012 at 13:58

Thanks chaps. Will have a look at overclocking the Q6600 and see how the performance improves then make a decision based on that.

Fire_fly · 16 Jul 2012 at 14:06

I went from a Q6600 @ 3GHz to an 3570K and it has made a massive difference. The computer feels so much quicker when gaming and in BF3 there has been a marked improvement in from my old computer. However I did also jump from a GTX 260 to a 680 so that made a massive difference as well. The Q6600s are good chips but are now starting to show their age when compared to the newer chips that Intel are producing.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 14:27

Energizer Bunny said:
Thanks chaps. Will have a look at overclocking the Q6600 and see how the performance improves then make a decision based on that.

My Q6600 was at 3.6GHz 24/7 for years (about the max you can really hope for 24/7 with air cooling)... and it was still more than worth the upgrade

3570/3770 are almost exactly twice as powerful as the Q6600, with both CPUs at stock frequencies.

so a 4.6GHz 3570/3770 will be ~95% faster than a 3.6GHz Q6600

And yes, it's noticeable even in windows

jaybee · 16 Jul 2012 at 14:43

crinkleshoes said:
My Q6600 was at 3.6GHz 24/7 for years (about the max you can really hope for 24/7 with air cooling)... and it was still more than worth the upgrade

3570/3770 are almost exactly twice as powerful as the Q6600, with both CPUs at stock frequencies.

so a 4.6GHz 3570/3770 will be ~95% faster than a 3.6GHz Q6600

And yes, it's noticeable even in windows

Define "twice as powerful" and "95% faster" please?

NirK · 16 Jul 2012 at 15:25

crinkleshoes said:
My Q6600 was at 3.6GHz 24/7 for years (about the max you can really hope for 24/7 with air cooling)... and it was still more than worth the upgrade

3570/3770 are almost exactly twice as powerful as the Q6600, with both CPUs at stock frequencies.

so a 4.6GHz 3570/3770 will be ~95% faster than a 3.6GHz Q6600

And yes, it's noticeable even in windows

That is not really true though is it lol. The i5 at stock compared to a Q6600 at stock is about 60% faster not twice as fast.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 15:25

jaybee said:
Define "twice as powerful" and "95% faster" please?

For the definitions, find a dictionary.

Go to anandtech, look at comparison.

They're vague figures, but reasonable approximations using the figures from Anand.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 15:31

Here you go - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Prod....31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.45.46

"Twice as fast" was actually a conservative comment... I wasn't expecting to get jumped on for it

The average of all those tests actually shows it to be more than twice as fast as a Q6600, while both CPUs are at stock speeds.

These then increase relatively linearly - so a 50% bump in clock speed on the Q6600 vs a 40% increase in clock speed on the 3770K
... would yield roughly a 95% increase in performance, if they were exactly 100% apart at stock speeds.

Simples

NirK · 16 Jul 2012 at 15:43

Actually you are right I was confusing CPU's. I didn't realise that you meant the 3.5Ghz 3770k with hyperthreading also.

They are a pretty sweet CPU but personally I would still wait for Haswell because it should be a fair jump as it is a whole new architecture compared to the Ivy bridge which is just a refined version of the Nehalem from 2009. However it might just be a graphical upgrade mainly like Sandy > Ivy. I think it will probably be 20-30% faster than Ivy bridge at CPU.

Also really the Q6600/Q6700 overclocked work fine with *most* games because of consoles holding back graphics so much.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 15:51

You're right there - most games, yes.

The only scenario (and not game in general) it struggled with were the 64 man BF3 servers.

32 man or less... fine

Any other game I tried at the time... fine

But it made me realise it was getting toward the end of its life & gave me the upgrade bug... along with Kepler

It's improvements in iGPU may have a negative knock-on effect with respect to overclocking... so I wouldn't base waiting on *just* that.

I think the best way to judge is what's most appropriate for the individual, rather than in general.

Only the OP can feel whether or not he *needs* to upgrade.

I got the urge & did it... no point waiting for the next thing, unless it really is right round the corner (1-2 months), that kind of thinking generally ends up in an endless chase of the next thing...

NirK · 16 Jul 2012 at 16:39

Yes really the 3770k is an awesome CPU no doubt.... It just seems to me that with the current games available and Haswell comming out in less than a year it would be good to hold out as long as possible because when the next gen consoles come out this will have a knock on effect on PC graphics and then you will really be needing a powerfull CPU.

Even then your 4.6Ghz 3770k will probably still be fine (and the Q6600 will certainly be out of date by then) but obviously the Haswell will be better long term if you can wait another 9 months or whatever it is until Haswell comes out. Can't go wrong with either of them really.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 17:01

I hope so, I'd like Haswell to be a nice bump... even if it will mean new gear in less than a year

The only thing worth considering is if the iGPU bump will affect overclocking potential. We won't know this for certain until release, of course...

If keeping at stock, that would be irrelevant - but if overclocking, we've yet to see what'll happen

Energizer Bunny · 16 Jul 2012 at 17:06

Hmmm. Having seen the Anandtech link I am sorely tempted. All logic seems to say hold off right now but there does seem to be an itch I need to scratch suddenly. I get the feeling that itch might wind up overiding my brain. BAH!

NirK · 16 Jul 2012 at 18:09

crinkleshoes said:
I hope so, I'd like Haswell to be a nice bump... even if it will mean new gear in less than a year

The only thing worth considering is if the iGPU bump will affect overclocking potential. We won't know this for certain until release, of course...

If keeping at stock, that would be irrelevant - but if overclocking, we've yet to see what'll happen

I wish they would just ditch the igpu thing entirely and leave that job to the graphics card so the CPU can be as good as possible.

crinkleshoes · 16 Jul 2012 at 18:31

Me too!

Apple are the primary reason for the iGPU push