Q6600 OC'd + 7970

Laher · 23 Dec 2011 at 03:53

So i should not really see much of a bottleneck with a Q6600 oc'd @ 3.5GHz with a 7970, should I ?

(purely for gaming purposes).

In terms of the next gen pc gaming, I will say its a fail...

I wonder what gfx cards they're gonna use in next gen consoles and how the ports (of the games) will run on this card say a yr later.

Just speculation at my part.

kissenger · 23 Dec 2011 at 05:23

Hmm... I think it depends on the game. E.g. I noticed barely any difference in BF3 going from a Q6600 to a 2500k. However, on more CPU intensive games it might be a problem. The Q6600 was a cracking CPU and it's held up very well though.

starkill3r · 23 Dec 2011 at 05:25

It will be a bottleneck.

The Q6600 is old, old architecture, was good at the time but there are just simply much better processors now.

The difference in performance from my jump from the q6600 to the 2500k was huge.

kissenger · 23 Dec 2011 at 05:52

starkill3r said:
It will be a bottleneck.

The Q6600 is old, old architecture, was good at the time but there are just simply much better processors now.

The difference in performance from my jump from the q6600 to the 2500k was huge.

Really? I went from a Q6600/560Ti to a 2500k/570 and all I've noticed so far is an FPS bump of around 10fps in BF3. Not exactly conclusive proof of anything, but I didn't get the impression that the Q6600 was that much of a bottleneck.

Sin_Chase · 23 Dec 2011 at 06:30

Depends on the game.

If it can properly use the 4 cores of the Q6600 you would likely be okay. If not I imagine it's going to hold the GPU back.

as905 · 23 Dec 2011 at 06:33

starkill3r said:
It will be a bottleneck.

The Q6600 is old, old architecture, was good at the time but there are just simply much better processors now.

The difference in performance from my jump from the q6600 to the 2500k was huge.

i agree,going from q6600 to 2500k i did notice a huge performance increase.

decto · 23 Dec 2011 at 10:49

This has been debated in other threads for other cards.

Short answer: Socket 775 is now a bottleneck for high end cards.

Long answer: There is a mix of opinion based on personal experience and measurement techniques.

E.g. If I max out a 2GB GTX560TI in BF3 @ 1080p Ultra + 4xMSAA with a Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz and get 41fps, then change to a I5 2500k and get 42fps then you may assume there is no Q6600 bottle neck.

However, if I find that an average 40FPS isn't quite smooth enough and back down the GPU settings to 1080p High with no MSAA then the Q6600 gives 42fps (70% gpu usage) and the I5 gives 55fps(99% gpu usage) you'd have to agree there was a bottle neck.

This is what I saw with my own system. I don't have the data to know if this bottle neck is related to the CPU, nfarce n750i motherboard or that I was running 8GB of DDR2. Later platforms with DDR3 etc may get more out of socket 775 but for me we're at a time where spending £500 on a GPU may only give you the performance of a £300 GPU in some games where the rest of the platform is pushed.

It really depends on what case you want to make and how you choose to look at it. Some prefer visuals over fps and others fps over visuals. There will always be a bottle neck in the system, just a question of where. An I5 upgrade selling off the old parts is fairly cheap compared to the cost of a £500 GPU...

AD

Marine-RX179 · 23 Dec 2011 at 11:06

Poor optimisation on cores usage in games would be the biggest limiting factor.

I myself is upgrading to 2500K soon instead of upgrading my graphic card, because of the games I play, even my 5850 get bottlenecked by the Q6600 at 3.6GHz during CPU intensive scenes...but this is because of their darn games only using 2~3 cores.

So basically the need to upgrading from Core2Quad to SandyBridge is more about compensating for game developers' incompentencebeing unable/unwilling to make their games use 4 cores, than Q6600 being too slow for modern games.

dmxdex2020 · 23 Dec 2011 at 11:21

People blow it out of proportion.

andybird123 · 23 Dec 2011 at 12:10

I currently have a GTX580 with a [email protected] and I get 80-99% utilisation of the GPU - avg. is 90% over a 20 minute game - OC'ing to 840/2100 memory I get no improvement in FPS and my avg. utilisation drops to about 84% so I'm saying the Q6600 is robbing me of 16% performance at this point

If the reviews of the 7970 are accurate and the 7970 is 10-20% faster than a GTX 580 and is quite a good OC'er from there then obviously this situation would be worse, basically you would be wasting money on a 7970 when a cheaper card would offer the same performance

flinco · 23 Dec 2011 at 13:46

When I had a 5870 and [email protected], there was a significant bottleneck.

BF3 would drop to around 60% gpu usage when there were lots of buildings around getting destroyed, or even just in a busy area. This would go up to 100% when i was on the edge of a map.

Assassins Creed 2, around 35-40 fps with the q6600. Now with an i5 750 @4, its around 55fps - still cpu limited.

In conclusion there a massive difference when you upgrade from one. I wouldnt bother getting any card better than a 6850 or gtx460 as you will still be bottlenecked.

Laher · 23 Dec 2011 at 16:24

Thanks for the replies guys, i dont think i will get the 7970 tbh, its not that much of an improvement for 1080p gaming.
The reason i wanted to get it was to be "future proof". If it did have an 80% improvement in MOST departments, i would have bought it on launch and upgraded the CPU on a later date.

Looks like im gonna have to buy something cheap and cheerful until fermi comes out, or something i deem to be future proof (which ofcourse we'll know when next gen consoles come out and their ports of games)

Farooq · 25 Dec 2011 at 11:30

Your wrong lads guru3D did a test with cpu scaling and a 7970. at 1080p you lose only 4 fps average over a higly clocked i7

remember a q6000 at 3.6 is same as a high end phenom 2 x4 975
at 3.5 it would be same as a phenom 2 x4 965 in most tests my sandra test scores have it a little higher Gflops wise at around 53
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/1
look at benchies above

its not real bottleneck at 1080p

your Q6600 has more than enough grunt enjoy.

looks like you would be as well getting a 7950 and overclocking it that would be best match to max your cpu and gpu.

in metro there is 1 fps difference its tiny from a i7. so long as your game is threaded for multicore there is no real bottleneck and the tests prove it what you lose is at low res or on older games that dont support multicore.

Marine-RX179 · 25 Dec 2011 at 12:17

Farooq said:
Your wrong lads guru3D did a test with cpu scaling and a 7970. at 1080p you lose only 4 fps average over a higly clocked i7

in metro there is 1 fps difference its tiny from a i7. so long as your game is threaded for multicore there is no real bottleneck and the tests prove it what you lose is at low res or on older games that dont support multicore.

Unfortune the game chosen are all "best case" scenerios, as all of them pretty much would all all 4 cores...in the real-world isn't 4 cores gaming heaven like that. The number of 2-3 cores games outweight the number of game that use 4 cores by FAR...games that use 4 cores probably accounts for less than 10% of all the games out there.

As I said before...even my 5850 get bottlenecked by my Q6600 at 3.6GHz all the time, due to games not using 4 cores.

ZeroUK · 25 Dec 2011 at 12:50

starkill3r said:
It will be a bottleneck.

The Q6600 is old, old architecture, was good at the time but there are just simply much better processors now.

The difference in performance from my jump from the q6600 to the 2500k was huge.

Just upgraded from a Q6600 to a 2500k as well. You absolutely will not regret it... the change in performance for all games is significant.

ALXAndy · 25 Dec 2011 at 14:01

OK so I am going to make the assumption that you are running either 1600p or three monitors. Because put frankly, that's the only reason you need one of these cards.

Your CPU will choke it, trust me I know.

Here is a Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3.4ghz with a pair of 295 co ops.

When launching VATS in Fallout 3 I had to wait about two minutes for it to work.

The CPU I was using was a dual core flavour of yours. And the game (Fallout 3) does not use more than two cores. The rig is now gone, and I replaced it with an I7 rig.

If, however, you don't use a huge resolution or three monitors? then no doubt you will buy it any way because you are.. Wait no, I don't want another two day vacation.

Enjoy your 7970.

Rroff · 25 Dec 2011 at 14:56

Q6600 with a good overclock won't massive bottleneck a 7970 but it will be holding it back somewhat - even going from a Q6600 @ 3.6gig to a Q9550 @ 3.825gig I noticed an increase in average and minimum framerates that translated to a noticeably smoother gameplay however it wasn't a major change.

There are a few - but atm fairly small number of - games that will see big gains from an i5/i7/SB setup but in most cases it will be fine with a good overclock.

In 99% of benchmarks I get exactly the same fps with my GTX470 SLI setup as someone with a similiarly clocked i7 or SB setup and the same GPUs and not far behind people running 4.5+gig CPU clocks.

leoncuprar · 26 Dec 2011 at 17:12

Along the same lines, I've got a E6850 running at 3.4Ghz and I'm thinking of replacing my 8800Gt SLI with a 1Gb 560Ti. I just got a £100 OCUK voucher for xmas so in a dilema, replace graphics with a 560Ti, or go i5 SB.... can't afford to do both unfortunately. WOuld the E6850 massively hold back a 560Ti....?

I only really use it for BF3 and game at 1920x1080..

flinco · 26 Dec 2011 at 23:10

leoncuprar said:
Along the same lines, I've got a E6850 running at 3.4Ghz and I'm thinking of replacing my 8800Gt SLI with a 1Gb 560Ti. I just got a £100 OCUK voucher for xmas so in a dilema, replace graphics with a 560Ti, or go i5 SB.... can't afford to do both unfortunately. WOuld the E6850 massively hold back a 560Ti....?

I only really use it for BF3 and game at 1920x1080..

I would go for the CPU upgrade first mate.