![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Q6600 vs i7 920
- Thread starter anabioz
- Start date
Not for my purposes it isn't....
i7 obliterates a Q6600 or any Core2 based system in RAM latency, throughput, and calculations.
An i7-920 at 2.66Ghz is faster that a Q6600 running at 3.84Ghz... and even then, the i7 blows the overclocked Q6600 away in RAM throughput.
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
No, No, No, and No. Only upgrade you need to be concerned about is your GPU. Why waste $400-500 for an i7/x58/ mobo when you can buy two 5850s and own all the i7 noobs who only have one 5850 because they spent too much on their cpu.
I would go with a faster harddrive like an Intel SSD because the system will be snappier overall than i7 with a slower harddrive.
And your purposes are running memory benchmarks? Certainly seems that way based on the rest of your post.
i7 920 is certainly better than a Q6600, no if's and's or buts about it, but lets not make it something that it isn't. The fact is, a stock 920 has a hard time keeping up with a 3.2GHz Core 2 Quad, in several applications. Much less one running at 3.84GHz
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=16
Nope.. more like multithreaded number theory programs that highly depend on RAM throughput and CPU speed.
Let's just say I could use a full 24GB of DDR3-2000 if it was affordable.
Oh yeah.. and even in WoW, my CPU usage with the Q6600 @3.84Ghz was 35-40% in Dalaran... with the i7-920 @2.66Ghz, the CPU usage went down to 20-25%. It also ran a lot smoother due to each core being able to handle a lot more since WoW has a thread that does a lot more stuff than the other threads.
One more thing.. that article is done with a higher end Quad with more cache than the Q6600.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,838
The Athlon 64 X2 processors had significantly more memory bandwidth than the Core2 Duo processors when they were released but that didn't stop the Athlons from getting dominated when it came to real game performance. In addition it's already been shown on multiple websites that the difference between Triple-channel DDR3 (like on the i7-920) compared to Dual-channel DDR3 (like on the i7-860) is extremely minimal.
So yeah, grats on high scores in artificial benchmarks or whatever random number theory app you are apparently running. Do you think that represents typical usage around here, as opposed to stuff like gaming?
Getting a bit tired of people who bought an i7 coming on here and spreading a bunch of BS about how great their chip is, like it's some huge computing revolution on par with the transition from P4 to Core2 Duo. Like others have said, it is what it is, and it's damn fast, but there is no point trying to paint is as something it's not. Certainly this is not the first time people have dropped tons of cash on something and then felt the need to justify their purchase by constantly talking about how great it is.
i7-920 has 8 virtual cores when you take hyperthreading into account. That is going to change the percentage representation of CPU usage. 25% CPU usage on an i7 would likely represent full utilization of two cores, similar to 50% on a Core2Quad.
I recently built my friend a new rig with an i7-920 at 4Ghz and a 4870x2, and CPU usage in Dalaran was just as high as it was with my Core2Quad in terms of the number of cores used and the degree to which those cores were being utilized (usually about one and a half cores in WoW).
Yep, the A64 on-die memory controlelr was the bomb.. and so was the processor! I had a 3700+ and then an Opty 170... First Intel system I had since the 486 days was the Q6600.. and I got that because the board and chip was given to me.
That being said, I had been waiting for a long time for Intel to finally make a CPU with an on-die memory controller... and the i7 does not dissapoint.
I would have kept my Q6600 setup for a while longer had my wife not needed an upgrade and it didn't hurt that I had some "rewards" cards and a bit of cash in my paypal account.... and I definitely was not going to buy something else that was only slightly better than what I had for about the same amount I was able to get an i7 setup going.
I'll have to check WoW with HT turned off on my i7.. but I do know it runs quite a bit smoother than it does with a Q6600. Could simply be bacause of the faster RAM, the increased/faster cache, etc.... but it is smoother.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
LOL
That made my day, it's almost sig material. Poor guy, you'd figure he would sell those off and get a 50 dollar discount on an alright 24".
Having just upgraded from a Q6600, I have to say the i7 920 feels quite a bit snappier. I hadn't planned on upgradinng yet, but my poor badaxe 2 finally gave up the ghost, and I figured if i'm going to upgrade why not go whole hog?
First thing's first, it is faster than a Q6600, even stock it was snappier doing piddly stuff and in heavier apps like CS4. The *imo* big thing is how much easier it is to hit bigger overclocks. I'm running it at 4ghz on air now. Fastest I ever had my q6600 stable was 3.75-3.8ghz. and that was with waaay too much vcore and temps that were right on the edge. A warm day would push it over the edge. By contrast, I literally spent 10 min. getting this 920 to 4ghz, and I might have room to go higher. My load temps with prime 95 are mid-high 60's, and if I add another fan to my megahalems and sort out my case airflow I aught to be able to shave a few degrees off the load temp.
Is it a "must" upgrade like 939-c2q? nope. Is it at least a little faster in everything I've tried? Yep.
First thing's first, it is faster than a Q6600, even stock it was snappier doing piddly stuff and in heavier apps like CS4. The *imo* big thing is how much easier it is to hit bigger overclocks. I'm running it at 4ghz on air now. Fastest I ever had my q6600 stable was 3.75-3.8ghz. and that was with waaay too much vcore and temps that were right on the edge. A warm day would push it over the edge. By contrast, I literally spent 10 min. getting this 920 to 4ghz, and I might have room to go higher. My load temps with prime 95 are mid-high 60's, and if I add another fan to my megahalems and sort out my case airflow I aught to be able to shave a few degrees off the load temp.
Is it a "must" upgrade like 939-c2q? nope. Is it at least a little faster in everything I've tried? Yep.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,022
I was in the same camp. I have a Q6600 humming at 3.6 GHz for 2 years until my Maximus Formula got bonkers. I could still RMA it and get a new one but I decided to upgrade right now to a i7 then sell the Q6600 setup to recoup the costs just so I get my rig back up asap.
My Q6600 at 3.2 does what I still need to do. I can't judge dropping 500 on something that will give me minimal performance benefits.
I went from a P4 3.2c to a q6600 though. I think that was justified 2 years ago.
Q6600 -> i7 to me just seems a side-ways upgrade and then head north. You gained some performance, but at what cost?
I went from a P4 3.2c to a q6600 though. I think that was justified 2 years ago.
Q6600 -> i7 to me just seems a side-ways upgrade and then head north. You gained some performance, but at what cost?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 21,828
My cost was $185. Did this at the end of the summer...
Sold Q6600 for $150 (originally $200 @ MC).
Sold P35 board for $70 (originally $105AR @ MW).
Sold 4GB DDR2-800 for $65 (originally $65AR @ NE).
======
$285
Cost of usage for 1.5yrs: $85
i7 920 from MC, $200
Asus P6T from Dell, $185
6GB DDR3-1600 from NE, $85
======
$470
Total cost of upgrade: $185.
Was it worth it to me? sure. Is it worth it to everybody else? probably not, depends on them, individually.
I don't think C2Q to i5/i7 is as much of a lateral move as many of you make it... And I built my C2Q rig in May, not a year or two ago as many of you have, so I'm hardly biased.
I just think we're at a point in time where processors are literally "fast enough" for a good majority of tasks, and unless you're undertaking certain specific tasks (video encoding, etc.) that benefit greatly from a new architecture on a daily basis, then the upgrade is just not worth it to you. At 'least not until games become much more threaded and the performance gap in general widens. For other people it's a very substantial upgrade tho.
There's also other upgrades that will yield a better bang for the buck, next gen video cards (as usual), or even something like an SSD. I only went w/a C2Q setup in May because I couldn't wait any longer and the i5 launch was still rather murky, i7 would've cost me $250+ more (X58 mobos were still pricey) and I figured I'd rather spend that money on an SSD a few months down the road (which I did, in Sept.). I also don't live anywhere near a MC.
I just think we're at a point in time where processors are literally "fast enough" for a good majority of tasks, and unless you're undertaking certain specific tasks (video encoding, etc.) that benefit greatly from a new architecture on a daily basis, then the upgrade is just not worth it to you. At 'least not until games become much more threaded and the performance gap in general widens. For other people it's a very substantial upgrade tho.
There's also other upgrades that will yield a better bang for the buck, next gen video cards (as usual), or even something like an SSD. I only went w/a C2Q setup in May because I couldn't wait any longer and the i5 launch was still rather murky, i7 would've cost me $250+ more (X58 mobos were still pricey) and I figured I'd rather spend that money on an SSD a few months down the road (which I did, in Sept.). I also don't live anywhere near a MC.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
Having just upgraded TO A Q6600, I am quite happy with it.
For "professional gaming / video encoding / working with photoshop" I would say it's perfectly fine for another 2 years.
Most games would gain the most performance out of a GPU upgrade than an overclocked Q6600 at this time. I would also highly recommend an SSD as that will literally change what you think about your computer overnight in terms of speed. The real restrictor in terms of what a user perceives in terms of a snappier, faster system is really harddrive technology being the bottleneck, especially with encoding and photoshop and other apps, etc.
For "professional gaming / video encoding / working with photoshop" I would say it's perfectly fine for another 2 years.
Most games would gain the most performance out of a GPU upgrade than an overclocked Q6600 at this time. I would also highly recommend an SSD as that will literally change what you think about your computer overnight in terms of speed. The real restrictor in terms of what a user perceives in terms of a snappier, faster system is really harddrive technology being the bottleneck, especially with encoding and photoshop and other apps, etc.
Well, despite what I said in my previous post (having built a C2Q rig in May), I wouldn't upgrade to a C2Q or s775-anything right now unless you're getting used parts or getting it for a steal... Considering the price of i5/P55 is barely any higher, but C2Q systems definitely have plenty of life left in 'em still.
Agreed, I certainly would no build a 775 based machine if I needed a new one right now. Already having a Q6600 though I also have no reason to upgrade FROM it. At least not yet.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
Is this a reference to a famous post on [H]?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 21,828
It was in reference to the quote of alg7_munif. alg7_munif was commenting on Atech's sig. Atech is now banned (or at least his title says so at the time of this post: Atech Banned, 2.4 Years), so you can no longer see his sig, which listed a PhysX and Killer NIC. Basically, if you read through the thread with that info, you'll get it.
From google cache...
Last edited:
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
He was a huge jerk and finally got what was coming to him. (I don't even know)
Great comment.
Last edited:
Finally. He was a huge prick.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
I don't think C2Q to i5/i7 is as much of a lateral move as many of you make it... And I built my C2Q rig in May, not a year or two ago as many of you have, so I'm hardly biased.
I just think we're at a point in time where processors are literally "fast enough" for a good majority of tasks, and unless you're undertaking certain specific tasks (video encoding, etc.) that benefit greatly from a new architecture on a daily basis, then the upgrade is just not worth it to you. At 'least not until games become much more threaded and the performance gap in general widens. For other people it's a very substantial upgrade tho.
There's also other upgrades that will yield a better bang for the buck, next gen video cards (as usual), or even something like an SSD. I only went w/a C2Q setup in May because I couldn't wait any longer and the i5 launch was still rather murky, i7 would've cost me $250+ more (X58 mobos were still pricey) and I figured I'd rather spend that money on an SSD a few months down the road (which I did, in Sept.). I also don't live anywhere near a MC.
I'd even say that the video cards have hit that "fast enough" point as well. 5 years ago you COULD NOT hope to play brand new games at max settings and huge resolutions on a $150 video card like you can today. Anybody with a 4870/260 or better is pretty set, and those cards fall into a price range that didn't cut it years ago. I've never owned a CPU like the Q6600. I've had it for two and a half years and I have not even considered upgrading yet.
I am still reluctant to dive in on a SSD, but that seems like the weakest link in my system at this point as far as snappiness is concerned.
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
More and more I am looking at the CPU load indicators versus my harddrive load indicators. My 4 cores are hardly doing anything but the computer is crawling as the harddrive light is solid and it's struggling. Harddrives are the bottleneck.
SSD really is the answer.
SSD is going to be my next upgrade as well, along with a fresh insteall of Win7. Just waiting for prices to come down a bit and reliability and capacity to go up and firmware bugs to be addressed. As of now, i'm still seeing and reading too many horror stories of the drives just dying shortly after being installed.
I agree completely. Very annoying when people with 920's recommend 920's, etc. etc. but that is the way of the world. Someone who just bought a Honda will be unlikely to recommend a Toyota.
It has been a tougher decision for me (for no good reason) whether to go from C2D to C2Q vs going to i7. Having an E8600 running like ice at 4.1GHz, but feeling that something is lacking in its multitasking capability, I have toyed with going to an 860, a 920 and also a Q9550. Even bought an 860, sold it, bought another one, now still can't decide the best upgrade!
Yes, I wish that people would not always recommend the exact make/model that they just purchased.
I would agree with you if adding an X25-M to a setup had eliminated the annoying surfing, and other lags that I get while burning a DVD, with the source material being on yet another drive. The totally bothersome part is that someone told me yesterday that they have seen these small delays even with a 920 setup. My original thoughts were that a quad-core setup would eliminate this issue. Yes, I have posted about this before, and no, I am not meaning to be in any way annoying about it.
Eh, I think with video cards it's more of a cyclical thing... Eventually we'll get to the point where newer games start pushing current cards again, imo, either that or Eyefinity will catch on and newer high end cards will gain new purpose (beyond driving 30" displays).
About three years ago the video card market was just in a bad funk when NV had a huge competitive edge over ATI and we literally had no mid-range cards to speak of. Even the cheapest GF 8800s were $300+ (w/320MB of RAM
). Ever since the HD 4xxx debuted we've been seeing the opposite of that, tons of competition, tons of choices across price segments top to bottom.Who knows tho, if Sony/MS decide that a new console is too much of an investment we may indeed see a decline of games that push new PC hardware as more and more AAA tittles are developed across all platforms.
Eh, if you start messing around w/fresh firmwares w/o doing your research that's possible... But the same is true of mobos/BIOS and GPUs/firmware tbh. Reliability is where it needs to be imo, availability and pricing is the biggest issue right now, and pricing would probably be on the verge of blowing up if the X25-M drives weren't so scarce (which in turn means Indillix drive prices haven't changed in 6 months despite the X25-M G2 launch).
Isn't it funny how the biggest pricks actually have baby sized pricks in the pants?
I agree, but trying my hardest to hold off for SATA 3 since SATA 2 is going to be a bottleneck with third gen and on SSD's.
I disagree completely, motherboards have been around for ages and most firmware/bios updates are there for added support for new processors, meaning you can get away with not updating and never know the difference the majority of the time.
SSD's are new, firmware updates are not reliable enough and actually add very important features like TRIM.
Not to mention, you scerw up a firmware update on a motherboard, you call the manufacturer they send you a new bios or worst case, a new board.
A firmware foul-up on an SSD and kiss your data goodbye. Hardly the same thing.
If you buy a new mobo with a new chipset and you do any OC'ing or tweaking at all, chances are you'll be depending heavily on BIOS updates to iron out a lot of quirks, and not all of 'em fix more than they break. /shrug I don't see how a few snafus in today's SSD firmware are any different.
Intel's drives have had two major issues, one only affected people who bought G2 drives the very first week they were available (AND had a BIOS password set for their hard drive), the other I've no idea how many it affected (the one that enabled TRIM) but it seems successive updates have fixed all the issues within the same month.
Indillix / OCZ put out a lot more beta/test firmwares simply because they depend on end users to do some of their testing, as they don't have the R&D budget Intel has.
Personally I haven't had any issues whatsoever w/my X25-M, I didn't do the TRIM update right away anyway because frankly I was busy but once I did it went thru smoothly. I don't see how the data issue is the manufacturer's fault, that will always be true of SSD updates (or any other reason for HD/SSD failure), if you don't run regular backups you are ALWAYS at risk, regardless of whether you're updating firmwares or not.
'Sides... For most users these days SSD are for the OS/apps, not archiving and valuable data, due to capacity/logical reasons, not reliability... Obviously laptop users will depend on an SSD for it all tho.
Intel's drives have had two major issues, one only affected people who bought G2 drives the very first week they were available (AND had a BIOS password set for their hard drive), the other I've no idea how many it affected (the one that enabled TRIM) but it seems successive updates have fixed all the issues within the same month.
Indillix / OCZ put out a lot more beta/test firmwares simply because they depend on end users to do some of their testing, as they don't have the R&D budget Intel has.
Personally I haven't had any issues whatsoever w/my X25-M, I didn't do the TRIM update right away anyway because frankly I was busy but once I did it went thru smoothly. I don't see how the data issue is the manufacturer's fault, that will always be true of SSD updates (or any other reason for HD/SSD failure), if you don't run regular backups you are ALWAYS at risk, regardless of whether you're updating firmwares or not.
'Sides... For most users these days SSD are for the OS/apps, not archiving and valuable data, due to capacity/logical reasons, not reliability... Obviously laptop users will depend on an SSD for it all tho.