• 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.

Q6600 vs 3570k @ 3.5 for Crossfire

Tattysnuc said:
Fascinating evaluation gents...

Surely the motherboard bus speeds will be the primary reason for these discrepancies... after all, doesn't the Q6600 sill use the concept of a northbridge as an external memory controller and PCI express controller?
Click to expand...

Yes that's one of the reason. However the overall richness and complexity of cpu core design (improved logic etc) has to be taken into account aswell with the memory controller being part of the overall design.

http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index...page=1&slug=why-ivy-bridge-is-still-quad-core

Just look at the transistor density and design of the individual core in Q6600 vs Sandybridge.

architecturecomparison.png
 
BF3. may well be GPU limited when you start looking at the high end settings.

But q6600, 6950 to i5 2500k, 6950 does makes a Big difference.

It would kinda suggest bf3 would still be a good test. Also i'd say people would be more interested in running 'current' games which could well be the reason they are thinking of upgrading in the first place.

But makes sense you just used results you had already taken. My old q6600 system is still in use by someone, tempted to take my gpu around again now.
 
Last edited:
Can you do a heaven benchmark so I can compare to a single overclocked 7850? Debating whether to get another 6850, or just a single 7850.
 
the_director said:
Q6600 @ 3.5

Average Framerate: 75.30
Max. Framerate: 124.75
Min. Framerate: 50.14

i5 3570k turbo reduced to 3.5

Average Framerate: 125.10
Max. Framerate: 182.90
Min. Framerate: 88.21
Click to expand...

That is around 5 years of progress, but at the same clock speed performance has not even doubled. Remember Moore's law, processors were supposed to double in performance every 18 months?

But the above may be GPU limited and that is why the results to me look disappointing.
 
WingZero30 said:
Yes that's one of the reason. However the overall richness and complexity of cpu core design (improved logic etc) has to be taken into account aswell with the memory controller being part of the overall design. #snip#
Click to expand...

That certainly would account for the improvement at the same clocks.

Just to point out though, the memory isn't running at the same frequency in this example, so it's not a true apple-apples comparison. Plus I'm guessing it's DDR3 vs DDR2...

What this example does serve to emphasize though is - newer technology delivers the same AND MORE instructions per clock cycle.
 
supafly said:
That is around 5 years of progress, but at the same clock speed performance has not even doubled. Remember Moore's law, processors were supposed to double in performance every 18 months?

But the above may be GPU limited and that is why the results to me look disappointing.
Click to expand...

It is of course GPU limited. Read back through the thread and you'll see a more direct comparison of how much CPU has improved.

The GPU merely demonstrated that the Q6600 just couldn't drive even a fairly old mid-range card to its full potential.
 
supafly said:
That is around 5 years of progress, but at the same clock speed performance has not even doubled. Remember Moore's law, processors were supposed to double in performance every 18 months?

But the above may be GPU limited and that is why the results to me look disappointing.
Click to expand...

Also dont forget that performance depends on the instructions being processed etc.

Theres two version afaik, transistor number/density is Moore's law.
The cpu power doubling is/was incidental I think, a by product of the advancement of logic design, more transistors and multi core cpu's.
 
the_director said:
Very interesting results for a single 5850 1gb:

Q6600 @ 3.5

Average Framerate: 44.75
Max. Framerate: 73.90
Min. Framerate: 29.18

i5 3570k @ 3.5

Average Framerate: 60.44
Max. Framerate: 147.36
Min. Framerate: 42.46

So even a heavily overclocked Q6600 was holding back a single 5850. I didn't realise that.
Click to expand...

Its far from the trought. I have q6600 with gtx 470 which is similar to to 5850, even litle faster and on full hd everything maxed out i got:

Q6600 @ 3.5
stock gtx470
Average Framerate: 69.80
Max. Framerate: 110.40
Min. Framerate: 55.20
Probably the motherboard hold your pc so thats why your 5850 perform so bad. The q6600 can do better than the results i posted, but my motherboard hold the system too.

Q6600 @ 3.5
Clocked gtx470

Average Framerate: 78.99
Max. Framerate: 126.54
Min. Framerate: 61.72
And i remembered i had same results like your 5850 when i used Аsus 650i sli. When changed the motherboard my fps jumpеd twice even more. So that thread is not first one that blame q6600 without real knowledge what bottelnecks the pc. For cross or sli probably q6600 will hold back but not for single 5850.
 
Last edited:
triggerthat said:
:D Apparently it is. There's no shame in spelling a word wong, just embrace it, same way one embraces a silent but violent fart.
Click to expand...
The last comment was not in place but this one is just to scratch the fingers it was so pointless, just spam...
People who think of using q6600 with modern video, check 3, 4 comments above.
 
Thanks to the_director for posting your findings, as well as others.

I have a Q6600 @ 3.5 and 480 in my machine and like to see posts that compare this so called old tech against the newest.
 
Smehuran, what oc settings are you running, as I suspect you have a high FSB OC? Not all q6600 motherboard/chip combos could do that or do it easily for the casual oc'er. So its not that useful to use an exception to define the rule.
But I agree the q6600 is still a capable chip when oc'ed. YMMV. I used to run one at 3.4 24/7 for several yrs untill about a month ago.
I have not got any numbers even though I had intented to bench both sytems initially, but qualitativly in one of the few games I play atm its is a noticable improvement in smoothness in BF3 and im currently running at stock so max turbo is 2.9ghz.
 
390X9 and the chip is G0 stepping.The mobo is not so good, Asus p5k se/epu(p35 chip). That mobo is not the best for gtx 470 and im sure if i change it ill get better results in games and p45 chip clock better q6600- around 3600 - 3800.
This is my results in far cry 2 bench:
Q6600 @ 3.5
stock gtx470
Average Framerate: 69.80
Max. Framerate: 110.40
Min. Framerate: 55.20
With Asus 650i sli and same configuration i got almost half of that results. That motherboard bottlenecked my pc a lot.

Q6600 @ 3.5
Clocked gtx470

Average Framerate: 78.99
Max. Framerate: 126.54
Min. Framerate: 61.72
 
Last edited:
sambot said:
Thanks to the_director for posting your findings, as well as others.

I have a Q6600 @ 3.5 and 480 in my machine and like to see posts that compare this so called old tech against the newest.
Click to expand...
Can you bench Far cry 2 on full hd everything max. And tell me your motherboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom