Q6600 has died

Sukh

Sukh

Sukh

Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2007
Posts
3,596
Location
Chelsea
My trusty Q6600 build has finally died :mad:

I have long since stopped gaming and am looking to build a general purpose PC. If possible, I would like to focus on quietness and low power than out and out performance.

I need a new mobo/ cpu/ (cooler? have a tuniq tower)/ ram and gfx.

At the moment I have:

Q6600 (overclocked to 3.8ghz)
Tuniq Tower - nice and quiet
Abit IP35 - solid mobo, no real preference on manufacturer
4gb OCZ reaper ram with the funky heatsinks - again not too bothered re 4gb/8gb
Ati 4890 2GB Vapour X - nice and quiet.

What would be the equivalent system today- mid end to lower performance. Budget is around £300 all in (ex VAT), I can push this a bit further if the extra money would give a big gain.

Anyone built something similar recently?
 
If it's just a general purpose PC then you won't need much. AMD do a great range of APUs with decent enough integrated graphics. Increase the ram to 8gb if you're running ram intensive programs. Arguably a SSD drive would give you more real world performance in everyday stuff.

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD A8-5600K Black Edition 3.60GHz (Socket FM2) APU Trinity Quad Core Processor (AD560KWOHJBOX) £69.95
1 x Kingston HyperX 3K SSD 120GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Drive (SH103S3/120G) £65.99
1 x Gigabyte F2A78M-DS2 AMD A78 (Socket FM2+) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard £39.95
1 x TeamGroup Elite 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C11 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (TED34GM1600HC11DC01) £31.99
1 x Raijintek Aidos Direct Contact CPU Cooler £14.99
Total : £232.46 (includes shipping : £8.00).

 
Thank you for replying - looks good. I should have added- have a samsung 840? ssd already.

Is it slightly ridiculous that my Q6600 released many many years ago isn't that far behind that AMD CPU?

Benchmark site

Will 8gb of ram make a difference? I doubt I ever use that much to be honest.

Also have a preference for "full fat" mobos, have had a bad experience in the past with mini atx come upgrade time and they just don't have the right sockets/ features are reduced.

Since I don't need a SSD, what is about right in the following bracket:

CPU- £70ish
RAM - £45ish
MOBO - £70ish
GFX - £85ish

(all ex VAT)
 
Last edited:
Yes but what your loosing out on with the Q6600 are things such as SATA III, UEFI bios, hign speed RAM and the AMD will be using far less power than an overclocked Q6600
 
Thanks for all the comments so far - fortunately I have found a temporary fix with my PC - upping all the voltages and removing the OC has brought it back to life?

Anyways - my only thoughts so far are a general sense of disappointment at the PC industry. How can it be that my years old 4890 2gb can keep up with a £100 card of today (R7 250 benchmark) and my years old Q6600 still cut the mustard?
 
Just a comparison against a "modern" £80/90 card - would have thought things would have moved on massively?
 
Sukh said:
Thanks for all the comments so far - fortunately I have found a temporary fix with my PC - upping all the voltages and removing the OC has brought it back to life?

Anyways - my only thoughts so far are a general sense of disappointment at the PC industry. How can it be that my years old 4890 2gb can keep up with a £100 card of today (R7 250 benchmark) and my years old Q6600 still cut the mustard?
Click to expand...

But... that link you used to compare checks theorectical results... not actual results with proper benchmarks and gameplay. Plus the 4890 was the top end card for the 4000 series designed for high end gaming, while the 250 is lower end designed for lighter gaming.
 
Now that is interesting - I am trying to find a comparison of the 4890 and 250 in an actual gaming benchmark but due to the age difference am struggling.
 
Remebering from the top of my head...

4890 was almost matched by the 5770. The 5770 was later rebranded as the 6770. The 7770 replaced it with similiar performance. According to this, the 7770 was rebranded as the 250X. Well, I guess they do perform pretty similiar then... but if you compare the power usage, the 4890 looks like a power hog compared to the 250X (190W vs 80W).

I suppose this would be the closest thing for comparison (4870 vs 777): http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/513?vs=536
 
Last edited:
Yeah that is pretty close - the 4890 had 2gb gddr5 and was obviously a bit faster on clock speed. Can you see how astonishing it is that a 5 year old car is basically the same performance as a 250x?
 
Last edited:
Sukh said:
Yeah that is pretty close - the 4890 had 2gb gddr5 and was obviously a bit faster on clock speed. Can you see how astonishing it is that a 5 year old car is basically the same performance as a 250x?
Click to expand...

not really, a 4890 was the highest end amd card 5 years ago, today the 250x is low/mid range at best, less power and a lot cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom