Q6600 - How does it compare to the i range?

bloodline76 · 13 Aug 2013 at 20:32

Been thinking about making the leap to an i3, i5 or i7 processor but as my Q6600 has been reliable and clocks to 3.8 I've held off.

So how does it compare to the newer range, is it worth upgrading?

Not much of a pc gamer anymore but do like to do digital artwork with photoshop.

Appreciate your advice

Csshaloo · 13 Aug 2013 at 20:51

difference between light and day. even if your q6600 was 6ghz would be close to a stock i5 2500k never mind the newer ones

bicpug · 13 Aug 2013 at 21:35

For photoshop you'd probably get a nice boost with more ram. Throw in an ssd and you'd see a massive improvement.

bloodline76 · 13 Aug 2013 at 21:48

Csshaloo said:
difference between light and day. even if your q6600 was 6ghz would be close to a stock i5 2500k never mind the newer ones

Didn't quite understand your light and day remark :confused:

So the simple answer is yes it would be a lot better.

bloodline76 · 13 Aug 2013 at 21:48

bicpug said:
For photoshop you'd probably get a nice boost with more ram. Throw in an ssd and you'd see a massive improvement.

Yeah I havent ventured down the SSD route yet but do have 8gig in unlike what my sig says.

JonJ678 · 13 Aug 2013 at 21:54

There was a serious step change when Intel moved away from FSB to the new QPI approach. Previously all memory access went through the "northbridge", now the CPU and memory are connected directly to each other. That wiped out the significant bottleneck for multiprocessing.

There are other improvements - newer chips have a different cache layout and the superior DDR3 memory - but I think it was the FSB -> QPI change which mattered the most.

You've got good use out of your Q6600!

bainbridge · 13 Aug 2013 at 22:01

Prior to my current system I had a [email protected] and even running at stock the new system is a lot faster, with an overclock it is even quicker.

Having said that my q6600 performed admirably, it ran the latest games at the time, admittedly Bad Company 2 was running at 90%+, but it did everything I wanted it to do and was by no means a slouch. I just had an upgrade itch and after waiting to see how the 2500k sandybridge chips performed decided to upgrade.

If you aren't using it for gaming doing what bicpug says will probably be the best way forward, the Q6600 is a legendary chip and they are still in demand on the second hand market.

wam7 · 13 Aug 2013 at 22:05

I had a Q6600 at 3.6Ghz. The i5 2500k and upwards will be a major improvement for everything. For video encoding my overclocked 2600k (5Ghz) was 2.5 time quicker. For what you do though I suspect an SSD will make more apparent improvements in your system speed.

bloodline76 · 13 Aug 2013 at 22:36

bainbridge said:
Prior to my current system I had a [email protected] and even running at stock the new system is a lot faster, with an overclock it is even quicker.

Having said that my q6600 performed admirably, it ran the latest games at the time, admittedly Bad Company 2 was running at 90%+, but it did everything I wanted it to do and was by no means a slouch. I just had an upgrade itch and after waiting to see how the 2500k sandybridge chips performed decided to upgrade.

If you aren't using it for gaming doing what bicpug says will probably be the best way forward, the Q6600 is a legendary chip and they are still in demand on the second hand market.

Yeah mine has been a beauty. It has a low vid too. I have a spare system so if I do upgrade my little Q6600 could jump over into the spare to live out its life in retirement

85256638 · 13 Aug 2013 at 23:36

I OC my Q6600 to 3.4Ghz and compared with my i3 2120 while playing TERA. I3 2120 still get 20% more fps than Q6600.

Sir SpankalotUK · 13 Aug 2013 at 23:40

went from a Q6700 to a i5-3570k and it's never felt like I've wasted my money, really glad I did the upgrade.

Marine-RX179 · 14 Aug 2013 at 00:16

I recall back in the days, games benchmark put Q6600 overclocked to 3.7GHz's frame rate around the same as a stock i5 760...and once the i5 760 got overclocked it left the overclocked Q6600 quite a long way behind.

With the current Core i ranges, the performance gain would be even greater.

85256638 · 14 Aug 2013 at 07:45

Marine-RX179 said:
I recall back in the days, games benchmark put Q6600 overclocked to 3.7GHz's frame rate around the same as a stock i5 760...and once the i5 760 got overclocked it left the overclocked Q6600 quite a long way behind.

With the current Core i ranges, the performance gain would be even greater.

very good point +when u oc to 3.7Ghz both the CPU and the northbridge are burning

ubersonic · 14 Aug 2013 at 09:08

bloodline76 said:
So how does it compare to the newer range, is it worth upgrading?

To a 2nd/3rd/4th gen i5/7 yes but I would note that a first gen i5 would not be a wise idea (saw somebody recommend it to you in another thread) as the first gen i's are not actually all that faster than C2's, I remember building a 4GHz i3 machine for my GF and being surprised that it felt slower than my stock Q9650. Your Q6600 at 3.6GHz means you would have to be running an i5 7xx at 4GHz just to see a noticeable difference and even then it wouldn't be biblical.

For reference, the perceived (how it feels rather than how it benchmarks) difference between my old Q9650 to my current i7 3820 @5GHz is like comparing my old Pentium D 920 to the Q9650, its that much better.

Nasher · 14 Aug 2013 at 09:49

My last CPU upgrade was from a Q6600 to a 2600k i7. The difference is massive.

I've had the 2600k for 2 years maybe and it's still going strong. I doubt I will need to replace it any time soon. There is still a lot of room for overclocking as well (currently at 4.4ghz).

nshire · 15 Aug 2013 at 19:59

had my Q6600 pretty soon after they came out when the people of OverclockersUK forums were going you don't need quad core nothing takes advantage of them etc etc.
I have to say the whole Core2 generation was top notch and can perform admirably today still.

Justintime · 15 Aug 2013 at 23:54

nshire said:
had my Q6600 pretty soon after they came out when the people of OverclockersUK forums were going you don't need quad core nothing takes advantage of them etc etc.
I have to say the whole Core2 generation was top notch and can perform admirably today still.

The laptop i use for my bedroom is a Core 2 T9300 with FX1600M graphics, 1TB hdd and 512gb ssd, more than ample for anything the internet can throw at it. Use it mainly for the 17" screen and 1920x1200 resolution.. prefer it over my i7 Ivybridge quad laptop anyday.. only use that for gaming on the move as its got an nvidia i can't remember what gaming card but terrible 720p res.

Flying_Hellfish · 16 Aug 2013 at 14:00

Nasher said:
My last CPU upgrade was from a Q6600 to a 2600k i7. The difference is massive.

I've had the 2600k for 2 years maybe and it's still going strong. I doubt I will need to replace it any time soon. There is still a lot of room for overclocking as well (currently at 4.4ghz).

Exactly the same here. Had the Core2Quad at 3.6, went to 2600k @ 4.4ghz and the step up was well worth it (in CPU limited games especially). Now at 4.6ghz and happy to stay here for a while yet.

Day to day, the move to an SSD was the real eyeopener though.

Rroff · 16 Aug 2013 at 16:33

nshire said:
had my Q6600 pretty soon after they came out when the people of OverclockersUK forums were going you don't need quad core nothing takes advantage of them etc etc.
I have to say the whole Core2 generation was top notch and can perform admirably today still.

My everyday machine for general web browsing, music, movies, etc. is an old laptop like the poster above with a t9600 (basically equivalent of a desktop Core 2 duo E8300) and it still manages any general use without ever feeling slow.

ScoTTyBEEE · 16 Aug 2013 at 17:43

I went from a Q6600 at 3.5ghz to an i5 760 at 4ghz and noticed the difference big time in games. I'm still on the i5 as nothing I throw at it causes problems.