• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

upgrade e4500->Q6600 G0?

T

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,930
just mulling the idea over and wanted to see what you guys think. i have no interest in getting a newer system, this one still does me rather well. this is more for smoother usability out of my system and a little bit of 'future proofing' for what little thats worth.

cooling isn't an issue, i run water with a 3x 120mm rad and all i'm cooling is the cpu and an ati 4870. so from what i've read on water with a slight voltage bump these q6600's overclock hard...my e4500 is sitting at 2.9Ghz with a slight voltage bump...i like to play it safe and not rape these things with voltage.

price is $115 straight from [H] forums...
 
Id say its worth it. Had mine for over 2.5 years and still does more than I need it too.
 
Agreed, huge upgrade. I've got a computer with an e5200 and the difference between it and my Q6600 is large to say the least. BC2 is a slide show (FPS in the teens) on it versus smooth sailing on my Q6600
 
RamonGTP said:
Agreed, huge upgrade. I've got a computer with an e5200 and the difference between it and my Q6600 is large to say the least. BC2 is a slide show (FPS in the teens) on it versus smooth sailing on my Q6600
Click to expand...

What video card did you pair the E5200 with? I know BC2 loves quad but it's also a video card hog as well. E5200 is no slouch either once it's overclocked to 4ghz.

I used to have E5200 @ 4ghz and GTX 260. It played BC2 fine for the most part @ max 1080p. Not the fastest frames but it was roughly mid 30 fps average online. Single player was faster though.
 
It's currently paired with a 9800GT. I know what you're thinking but that's not the case. I slapped my 5870 in there as well and performance was just as bad. I was able to crank up more AA along with HBAO but the average frames were still in the teens and minimum in the single digits.

It's in a Lenovo desktop so overclocking it wasn't much of an option, atleast not a really high OC. I did manage to find a nifty piece of software called SetFSB that let me overclock it and I managed to get it up to 3GHz which helped a good bit, but still not good enough.
 
RamonGTP said:
Agreed, huge upgrade. I've got a computer with an e5200 and the difference between it and my Q6600 is large to say the least. BC2 is a slide show (FPS in the teens) on it versus smooth sailing on my Q6600
Click to expand...

this.

I had an e6550, overclocked, which is faster than what you're running. I upgraded to the q6600, and it's night and day. For 100ish dollars, there's no better upgrade.
 
RamonGTP said:
It's currently paired with a 9800GT. I know what you're thinking but that's not the case. I slapped my 5870 in there as well and performance was just as bad. I was able to crank up more AA along with HBAO but the average frames were still in the teens and minimum in the single digits.

It's in a Lenovo desktop so overclocking it wasn't much of an option, atleast not a really high OC. I did manage to find a nifty piece of software called SetFSB that let me overclock it and I managed to get it up to 3GHz which helped a good bit, but still not good enough.
Click to expand...

That's why.... Once overclocked It should be faster than E8500 at stock. My E5200 was a screamer @ 4ghz. You should try putting the E5200 in your main system and overclock and compare it with your Q6600. It might surprise you how capable the E5200 is once overclocked.

I have an i3 530 @ 4.3ghz and 5770 now and it's not all that much faster in BC2 than my old system. I probably gained 5fps average maybe.
 
I have faster dual cores than the e5200, i'm well aware of their capabilities. I only used the 5200 as a comparison becuase it's the closest CPU I have to what the OP is running. In BC2, thers is simply no questioning the superiority of a quad core, ESPECIALLY with the lower end dual cores which the e5200 is and a e4500 most certainly is.
 
Like what dual core @ what mhz?

Did you even try clocking the E5200 to 4ghz to tell me this opinion? I don't think you are quite aware of E5200 @ 4ghz which is based on wolfdale while Q6600 is based on conroe. In dual core optimized games which is 95% of the PC games out there it's faster than your Q6600 @ 3.2.ghz. In quad optimized games it should be fairly close considering you don't quite double performance by adding more cores as games just aren't optimized. Faster dual core is still the sweet spot for PC games. A slow quad is not. Now if you have a fast quad it shouldn't matter.
 
I'm talking about BC2, not 95% of games. I'm also well aware that the Q6600 is based of an older silicon. That doesn't change the fact that it performs worlds better in BC2 and quite frankly, nothing you're going to say is going to convince me that my eyes were lying to me. My fastest dual core is an e7300 at just under 3.8GHz and my Q6600 at 3.2GHz blows it away in BC2, period end of story. Whether or not you want to believe it is not my concern.
 
Last edited:
So you are basing your opinion in 1 game when the thread starter doesn't even mention BC2? Quite frankly that's absurd.

Blow it away? Worlds better? Inappropriate choice of words. maybe 15-20% faster in quad optimized games. I would hardly call that blowing or worlds better. It still doesn't change the fact that 95% of the PC games out there are still slower than a fast dual core.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/
 
MrXROK said:
So you are basing your opinion in 1 game when the thread starter doesn't even mention BC2? Quite frankly that's absurd.

Blow it away? Worlds better? Inappropriate choice of words. maybe 15-20% faster in quad optimized games. I would hardly call that blowing or worlds better. It still doesn't change the fact that 95% of the PC games out there are still slower than a fast dual core.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...CPU-benchmarks-x-Core-i5/i7-leading/Practice/
Click to expand...

I'm the one playing the game on these two machines, not you. It's the difference between unplayable and perfectly playable. My choice of words stand. Whats absurd is you having an opinion on something you clearly have no experience with. Your experience comes from two machines that were both largly GPU limited. I've used both CPU's with the same 5870 video card so I actually know what I'm talking about.

My quad gives more than adequate performance in ALL games, that's more important to me than having a higher clocked dual core that may perform a little better in some games while being significantly worse in others.

Sorry, but I'll take my 3.2GHz quad over a higher clocked Core 2 Duo processor any day. I have both, I know the difference and have no need to be bias towards one. By bias goes towards the one that performs better.

To sum it up:
I'm the one with the quad
I'm the one with the higher clocked dual
I'm the one with the game
I'm the one with a video card that isn't the limiting factor

And you're the one with the answers??? lol ok.
 
Last edited:
RamonGTP said:
I'm the one playing the game on these two machines, not you. It's the difference between unplayable and perfectly playable. My choice of words stand. Whats absurd is you having an opinion on something you clearly have no experience with. Your experience comes from two machines that were both largly GPU limited. I've used both CPU's with the same 5870 video card so I actually know what I'm talking about.

My quad gives more than adequate performance in ALL games, that's more important to me than having a higher clocked dual core that may perform a little better in some games while being significantly worse in others.

Sorry, but I'll take my 3.2GHz quad over a higher clocked Core 2 Duo processor any day. I have both, I know the difference and have no need to be bias towards one. By bias goes towards the one that performs better.

To sum it up:
I'm the one with the quad
I'm the one with the higher clocked dual
I'm the one with the game
I'm the one with a video card that isn't the limiting factor

And you're the one with the answers??? lol ok.
Click to expand...

I just suggested to you what an E5200 can do at 4ghz. Then you go off I'm not listening to you what you say. :rolleyes: Now I'm biased because I suggested you try out your E5200 @ 4ghz? Get some help! :confused: I wasn't even arguing with you that Q6600 was slower than E5200 @ 4ghz with BC2 but it's faster 95% of the games out there that is optimized for dual core only.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion, but if my e7200 at ~3.8ghz isn't doing it for me i highly doubt a lesser processor running 200mhz higher is going to
 
I would just like to say: You can always overclock to a higher frequency, you cannot add more cores.

good luck, whatever you decide.
 
Some games love high clocked dual core processor. That one starcraft 2 benchmark shows q6600 having the same performance as a e6600 clock for clock.

I'd really like to see more benchmarks in SC2 with overclocked CPUs. Seems it would do good with a standard high-overclocked e8500.
 
yea would be interesting....i mean at 2.9Ghz on an e4500 i cant complain TOO much but a quad would be sweet none the less.

unfortunately thats going to have to wait...had a small accident with my car so now my money needs to go into car parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top