Will It Improve??? (Q6600)

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:07

Hi ive just got a new moboard n its an socket 775 soooo....

At the moment ive got a AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000

will a q6600 improve loads in terms of gaming(fps)???

Cheers Mike

Slashiem · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:20

Not hugely.
There wont be a huge increase is many games due the AMD 6000+ being clocked at 3.10GHz which is normally enough for most games, i do believe.

EvilOne · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:20

Which games, which res, and which GPU you use?

Q6600 will be a step up either way

SMN · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:23

Seconded. Much will depend on your graphics card though.

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:33

well the cpu is not overclocked and im running it on a 32" tv so res is down to 1360x768(unless ya can change it 4 games) and GPU is a 3870 512mb

Cheers!

The Halk · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:48

Just in case you mean improve loads, as in loading time it'll have no impact. I don't think you do though.

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 12:53

nah its more to do with fps!

pastymuncher · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:14

Nope. You have just wasted your money. It may even be slightly slower. You would have been better off waiting for the new AMD "Deneb" cores which are looking very promising.

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:18

honest? but im hoping oc a q6600 to bout 3.3 maybe more???

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:19

n the mobo im runing now cost about 35 quid about a year ago lol it has no ocing capabilities

its Asrock alive-DVi or sumat like tha

iamTakeo · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:33

I have a Q6600 and I'm currently building a new system, I'm not using the Q6600 this time, stepping down to a cooler 45nm dual core. was looking at AMD processors and if I had an AMD chipset I'd choose a processor similar to yours. My Q6600 was a nightmare to overclock, even though my motherboard cost 160>, and it now sits at 2.8Ghz because I was fedup with instability.

SMN · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:36

iamTakeo said:
I have a Q6600 and I'm currently building a new system, I'm not using the Q6600 this time, stepping down to a cooler 45nm dual core. was looking at AMD processors and if I had an AMD chipset I'd choose a processor similar to yours. My Q6600 was a nightmare to overclock, even though my motherboard cost 160>, and it now sits at 2.8Ghz because I was fedup with instability.

I was using a £90 Gigabyte and i managed to get mine to 3.5GHz within hours. They are very good OC'ers if you can get the right stepping.

Darkmike · 9 Dec 2008 at 13:44

what do you mean by the right stepping??

SMN · 9 Dec 2008 at 14:09

Heres a link which might be helpful : http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/29
Basically, in Q6600 terms, the G0 stepping is much more power efficient (95w vs 125w) and is a lot better clocker.

arc@css · 9 Dec 2008 at 14:25

You may see a reasonable improvement in some games imo but the main benefit will be desktop applications. Goes like a bullet, especially if you o/c it

PaulyD · 9 Dec 2008 at 17:49

They are very good OC'ers if you can get the right stepping.

Tough to find a B3 nowadays anyway!

SMN · 9 Dec 2008 at 18:23

True but you might have bad luck

Some old stockists might have some in the back room also! G0's seemed to come around in November 2007 - although i could be talking out of my backside.

drunkenmaster · 9 Dec 2008 at 19:09

EvilOne said:
Which games, which res, and which GPU you use?

Q6600 will be a step up either way

SMN said:
Seconded. Much will depend on your graphics card though.

nonsense, it doesn't matter what res, or gpu you have. If your cpu can do 100fps at 800x600, it can do 100fps at 1920x1200, the gpu is the limiting factor, a 3.1Ghz dual core is more than capable in basically every game you'll play, 1 or 2 games can use more power but don't have to. IE Supcom can use more power, a huge quad can let you use 58 trillion units, but you can happily play with 500 units with no problem on a dual core, 99% of people that played the game played it happily, including me, all the way through with a dual core at full detail level. FSX will use a quad, but frankly few people play it properly, GTA uses a quad, mostly because its one of the most ineptly coded games to come out in years. Crysis was a power hog but looked fantastic, GTA looks, average, nothing fantastic though a great scale level and fantastic design.

I'm fairly sure your 6000+ can get a few hundred Mhz extra on it already, or go ahead and underclock your cpu to say 2.6Ghz and check your fps, go back to stock, check your fps, and then overclock to 3.4Ghz(if you can) and check your fps. 3dmark score will increase, nothing else will(beyond 3-4%).

Greebo · 9 Dec 2008 at 22:53

Slashiem said:
Not hugely.
There wont be a huge increase is many games due the AMD 6000+ being clocked at 3.10GHz which is normally enough for most games, i do believe.

Wrong. I went from a 4200+ x2 running at 3Ghz to a q6600 running at 3.4Ghz and my crysis framerate at went from 29fps to 41fps :eek:

I call that a major boost.

bluesouljah · 9 Dec 2008 at 23:39

iamTakeo said:
I have a Q6600 and I'm currently building a new system, I'm not using the Q6600 this time, stepping down to a cooler 45nm dual core. was looking at AMD processors and if I had an AMD chipset I'd choose a processor similar to yours. My Q6600 was a nightmare to overclock, even though my motherboard cost 160>, and it now sits at 2.8Ghz because I was fedup with instability.

I hit 3.8 with mine, not difficult if you can overclock properly, 4gig has potential, Currently considering a 920 i7 core for sh*ts and giggles