The good old Q6600

Psssh it's all about the Atom Dual Core! I dunno what ya'll are smokin :D
 
I'm still running my G0 Q6600 from uh.. 2008? IMO it is to cpus as the 8800GTX was to video cards.
 
After running on my Q6600 for 4 years, I finally upgraded and ordered a new build. And only because the gf needs a new computer...otherwise I would have kept on waiting. Runs like a champ!

i5 - 2500k
msi p67 G45
msi 6950 2gb
gskill 8gb ddr3 1333

Can't wait!
 
I have a nearly 4 year old (11/2007) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz, and it has been fantastic. I never even considered upgrading until I saw some of the games being released toward the end of the year.

I don't have SSD yet, and my current GPU is a Radeon 5700 HD.

Is it worth even considering an upgrade for my CPU? Should I focus on SSD and GPU for now?
 
IAteASeagull said:
I have a nearly 4 year old (11/2007) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz, and it has been fantastic. I never even considered upgrading until I saw some of the games being released toward the end of the year.

I don't have SSD yet, and my current GPU is a Radeon 5700 HD.

Is it worth even considering an upgrade for my CPU? Should I focus on SSD and GPU for now?
Click to expand...

Definitely SSD & GPU !!!
 
IAteASeagull said:
I have a nearly 4 year old (11/2007) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz, and it has been fantastic. I never even considered upgrading until I saw some of the games being released toward the end of the year.

I don't have SSD yet, and my current GPU is a Radeon 5700 HD.

Is it worth even considering an upgrade for my CPU? Should I focus on SSD and GPU for now?
Click to expand...

Get a GPU + SSD.
The SSD will make the biggest improvement. GPU will help out a good bit with new games.

I'd say the OCing the cpu is optional, but might be worth it so it won't be a bottleneck *if* you get a high end GPU :D
 
I'd say overclocking the CPU is mandatory. If I was somehow stuck at 2.4GHz I'd have every reason to have upgraded to a 2600k by now. Since OCing is free, you can do that and snag a SSD or new card. If you want a better gaming experience get the GPU if you want an overall snappier system, get the SSD. I've currently got two machines with a SSD, my main machine (specs in sig) and my MacBook Air. I have one other laptop and several desktops with mechanical hard drives and I can't stand to use any of them.
 
IAteASeagull said:
I have a nearly 4 year old (11/2007) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz, and it has been fantastic. I never even considered upgrading until I saw some of the games being released toward the end of the year.

I don't have SSD yet, and my current GPU is a Radeon 5700 HD.

Is it worth even considering an upgrade for my CPU? Should I focus on SSD and GPU for now?
Click to expand...

SSD first. My main rig w/ SSD went from a Q6600 G0 to i5-2500k and I built an HDD based second gaming rig out of the Q6600 setup. The biggest difference between the two (except heat/power being lower on the i5) is the SSD for most use (general browsing, email, games 2009 or older).

The lack of SSD stands out every time I use the second rig. Both run Win7 x64. The main rig has 150+ software package installed and the second rig has ~10.
 
I was also a Q6600 user G0 stepping when It can out , clocked it 3.4Ghz and it handles everything fine ( for the past 3.3yrs ) ditched it and got a i6 2600K @ 4.5Ghz and couldnt be any happier..
 
Still rocking my Q6600 from like late 2007 or early 2008. My rig has gone through memory, motherboard, GPU, heatsink and disk upgrades but the CPU has remained the same. Even at work I have a Dell GX755 with a Q6600 that I beat up on daily with no issues. There's a new GX980 with an i7 3.6Ghz processor sitting next to me waiting to take the place of my 755 but there's no pressing reason to swap it out. For just about everything I do, the i7 does not feel any faster than my Q6600. I'm sure if I were compressing videos all day, it would be a different story.

I <3 my Q6600s. :)
 
Im afraid my q6600 will meet its doom when running BF3. Along with my gtx 260. But I cant complain, they lasted 3 years.
 
I still got my Q6600; I was gonna upgrade in January when Sandy Bridge was coming out but then that chipset fiasco happened. I'm waiting til the BF3 demo to see if it destroys my CPU, if Bad Company 2 wasn't a big enough indicator.
 
What can a Q6600 get in CB 11.5 multiprocessing test?

My guess is compared to Phenom II and i5/i7 Quad Core CPU's it's slower by a noticeable amount.

Anyone want to post what a Q6600 OC or stock can get up to?
 
teletran8 said:
What can a Q6600 get in CB 11.5 multiprocessing test?

My guess is compared to Phenom II and i5/i7 Quad Core CPU's it's slower by a noticeable amount.
Click to expand...

Of course its slower than the i5's and i7's... dur..dur...

The only reason you even bothered to include that in your post is cleverly disguise your fanboy flamebaiting like you do in the AMD section.

You also might want to check google. If you had bothered to do a search, you would have your answer real quick.
http://www.cbscores.com/
 
I just bought a Q6600 G0 on the [H] trade forum last week for a friend.

He upgraded from a C2D E6420 to hopefully see a difference in Bad Company 2...

Now BC2 plays perfect for him, no more stuttering. It's interesting, he has a GTX 260 and he had less performance in BC2 with the GTX 260 on his C2D E6420 than on my Core i3 2100 with a 9800 GTX+ (same amount of RAM in each system, 4GB).

The 9800 GTX+ is a slower GPU, so this proved his E6420 was bottlenecking his GTX 260 (that or the Q6600 simply made the difference).

He has been able to do 333 x 9 = 3 Ghz at stock VID on the Q6600 with an old Gigabyte P43 board.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Of course its slower than the i5's and i7's... dur..dur...

The only reason you even bothered to include that in your post is cleverly disguise your fanboy flamebaiting like you do in the AMD section.

You also might want to check google. If you had bothered to do a search, you would have your answer real quick.
http://www.cbscores.com/
Click to expand...

LOLBRO thx for the daily laughs you provide for me ;)

Anyhow I see that you can score 4.00pts with a Q6600 OC'd to 3.6Ghz (with your kindly pasted link ty btw), that's really good performance for such an older CPU (Maybe I should have spent 550.00 for it back in 07' but the E6600 was 330.00 and I was coming from AMD Barton single core +2500 oc'd to +3200 which I spent 80.00 on lol and my mobo was 59.00 lmao! Mainstream P4's CPU chips alone back then were like 170-200 + mobos were 80+, and that's for mainstream crappy ones, and they couldn't even keep up with my AMD processor in gaming) I spent half and got more than my friends who stuck with Intel builds (felt pretty bad for them honestly). Anyhow it is most likely that Q6600 is the last stepping that benched that score, with a very high end mobo. I woulda had the first stepping if I was adventurous to spend 500+ on a proc back in late 07, then 200-300+ on a high end SLI mobo and 125+ on high end Kingston 2-4GB kit woulda pushed me to 1k for the basics. Oh well kudos to those that spend that much on Intel CPU builds. I like OC'd AMD builds better! I'm GUILTY as charged :p

Quad Core design has been a great CPU design since the Q6600 dropped for desktop users, but in 2012 I see a new trend. Yep, AMD 8 Core is the next King for desktop users, and SB 6 core or Ivy but that will cost you an arm and a leg so....nah ;) Or if you like console ports just keep sticking with your Quads in 2012 :D I'm pretty sure the Wii 2 is a quad core based console, should be perfect for an Intel fanboi like yourself m8. :eek: Thx again, for your flame bait post.
 
Last edited:
needmorecarnitine said:
It is not about whether or not a Q6600 can handle it (it can), its about how much faster Sandy Bridge is
Click to expand...

Smoother better FPS and less hiccups, playing future online 64 player BF3 servers or any current online game with alot of people. :p Of course the Q6600 is still a web browsing flash kids games playing BEAST. ;) And it rips a DVD pretty fast, but for current online games or HD encoding you can do better, even with just an OC'd 80.00 dollar AMD Phenom II. Sorry, but it's the truth guys. Back in 08' that was the bomb desktop chip, just not today.
 
Why are you apologizing? I don't think anyone here (not even Q6600 owners like myself) are even remotely suggesting it's a "bomb desktop chip" just giving it praise given it's age and the fact that its still very capable, even for today's games, online or otherwise.

Per neweggs prices the cheapest Phenom II X4 is $90. An overclocked $90 Phenom II will not fit in my LGA 775 board, nor will my DDR2 fit in the board I'd need for the $90 Phenom II. So after you buy your board/chip/ram you're left with a system that is marginally faster then your old one IF you have a Q6600 that didn't OC well. If you have one that did OC (3.4-3.6GHz) well then you'll have a brand new system that performs the same as your 3-4 year old system you just upgraded from.

Sorry, that's just horrible advise but ironically enough, an excellent example of why this thread exists. This 4 year old chip performes damn near equally as well as the "new" CPU you're suggesting.

Thanks but I think i'll stick with my Q just a tad longer until Ivy ships next year.
 
My list is AMD Thoroughbread XP 2400+ > Q9550 > E6600.

Currently on a 2500k and I must say..the Q9550 was a force to be reckoned with. Still holds it's value.
 
teletran8 said:
Quad Core design has been a great CPU design since the Q6600 dropped for desktop users, but in 2012 I see a new trend. Yep, AMD 8 Core is the next King for desktop users, and SB 6 core or Ivy but that will cost you an arm and a leg so....nah ;) Or if you like console ports just keep sticking with your Quads in 2012 :D I'm pretty sure the Wii 2 is a quad core based console, should be perfect for an Intel fanboi like yourself m8. :eek: Thx again, for your flame bait post.
Click to expand...
My flame bait post? You are the one coming into an Intel forum about a Q6600 processor and then thinly disguise your fanboy flamebait about Bulldozer's superiority with a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. It's obvious by your inability to make a complete paragraph with complete sentences using relevant information that you have never written a college level paper. Your posts read like a stream of consciousness typed out by a 12 year old. If I didn't know any better, you could be one of those forum spambots that go by the name Drashek. For example, WTF does the Nintendo Wii and its IBM CPU have anything to do with the discussion of the Intel Q6600? Nothing. You are going off on a completely different tangent that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I'm done feeding you cookies today troll. I have tried to help you be a more productive member here, but you obviously don't want the advice. Haven't you noticed how few people reply to your posts in the AMD section? Are you posting this same crap in the Intel section because you miss the attention?

RamonGTP said:
Why are you apologizing? I don't think anyone here (not even Q6600 owners like myself) are even remotely suggesting it's a "bomb desktop chip" just giving it praise given it's age and the fact that its still very capable, even for today's games, online or otherwise.

Per neweggs prices the cheapest Phenom II X4 is $90. An overclocked $90 Phenom II will not fit in my LGA 775 board, nor will my DDR2 fit in the board I'd need for the $90 Phenom II. So after you buy your board/chip/ram you're left with a system that is marginally faster then your old one IF you have a Q6600 that didn't OC well. If you have one that did OC (3.4-3.6GHz) well then you'll have a brand new system that performs the same as your 3-4 year old system you just upgraded from.

Sorry, that's just horrible advise but ironically enough, an excellent example of why this thread exists. This 4 year old chip performes damn near equally as well as the "new" CPU you're suggesting.

Thanks but I think i'll stick with my Q just a tad longer until Ivy ships next year.
Click to expand...
Ignore him. He is a delusional fanboy of the highest order. Don't even get him started on Cinebench benchmarks and how it is the end all be all because some AMD chips happen to beat Intel chips occasionally.
 
Last edited:
Hey CaptNumbNutz. I think CB 11.5 multi processing benchmark is a good benchmark for comparing CPU's. You probably think Crysis is a good benchmark for buying your CPU, and hey Whatever bro, I came in on post #15 your just late to the party. ;) That's your fault.
 
teletran8 said:
LOLBRO thx for the daily laughs you provide for me ;)

Anyhow I see that you can score 4.00pts with a Q6600 OC'd to 3.6Ghz (with your kindly pasted link ty btw), that's really good performance for such an older CPU (Maybe I should have spent 550.00 for it back in 07' but the E6600 was 330.00 and I was coming from AMD Barton single core +2500 oc'd to +3200 which I spent 80.00 on lol and my mobo was 59.00 lmao! Mainstream P4's CPU chips alone back then were like 170-200 + mobos were 80+, and that's for mainstream crappy ones, and they couldn't even keep up with my AMD processor in gaming) I spent half and got more than my friends who stuck with Intel builds (felt pretty bad for them honestly). Anyhow it is most likely that Q6600 is the last stepping that benched that score, with a very high end mobo. I woulda had the first stepping if I was adventurous to spend 500+ on a proc back in late 07, then 200-300+ on a high end SLI mobo and 125+ on high end Kingston 2-4GB kit woulda pushed me to 1k for the basics. Oh well kudos to those that spend that much on Intel CPU builds. I like OC'd AMD builds better! I'm GUILTY as charged :p

Quad Core design has been a great CPU design since the Q6600 dropped for desktop users, but in 2012 I see a new trend. Yep, AMD 8 Core is the next King for desktop users, and SB 6 core or Ivy but that will cost you an arm and a leg so....nah ;) Or if you like console ports just keep sticking with your Quads in 2012 :D I'm pretty sure the Wii 2 is a quad core based console, should be perfect for an Intel fanboi like yourself m8. :eek: Thx again, for your flame bait post.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving his point. Next time try to make a less convoluted post. :rolleyes:
 
Alright guys, calm down a bit. This is a thread about the q6600 not what cpu does best at which benchmark of choice.
 
BanDeodorant said:
Thanks for proving his point. Next time try to make a less convoluted post. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh you mad 2 now bra? :D

IMO, any CPU that debuts for 900.00+ usd is good for it's era, this thread is silly.

It's like saying I spent 100,000.00 usd on a car 5 years ago, and it's still sorta fast. Just lol guys, seriously?

80.00 - 90.00usd X3/Phenom II's pown that processor. X3's debuted under 100.00. I just don't understand you guys. So I'll just be leaving this thread now.

You and Mr. Numbnutz can have it all to yourselves, you two little cuties. :D
 
teletran8 said:
Oh you mad 2 now bra? :D

IMO, any CPU that debuts for 900.00+ usd is good for it's era, this thread is silly.

It's like saying I spent 100,000.00 usd on a car 5 years ago, and it's still sorta fast. Just lol guys, seriously?

80.00 - 90.00usd X3/Phenom II's pown that processor. X3's debuted under 100.00. I just don't understand you guys. So I'll just be leaving this thread now.

You and Mr. Numbnutz can have it all to yourselves, you two little cuties. :D
Click to expand...

If you think the thread is silly dont fucking post in it...

And the CPU debuted at ~$500 what the fuck are you going on about?

Quit trolling and head back to the AMD forums...
 
in times of difficulty and stress (when browsing forums that is) i remind myself when faced unwavering zealotry (i know i'm making words up as i go along) of this simple message...

'arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded.'

you feed the man'imal, it'll come back for more...
 
teletran8 said:
Oh you mad 2 now bra? :D

IMO, any CPU that debuts for 900.00+ usd is good for it's era, this thread is silly.

It's like saying I spent 100,000.00 usd on a car 5 years ago, and it's still sorta fast. Just lol guys, seriously?

80.00 - 90.00usd X3/Phenom II's pown that processor. X3's debuted under 100.00. I just don't understand you guys. So I'll just be leaving this thread now.

You and Mr. Numbnutz can have it all to yourselves, you two little cuties. :D
Click to expand...

A high end processor that's 4 years old can hang with a midrange processor from today?

STOP

THE

PRESSES
 
teletran8 said:
Oh you mad 2 now bra? :D

IMO, any CPU that debuts for 900.00+ usd is good for it's era, this thread is silly.

It's like saying I spent 100,000.00 usd on a car 5 years ago, and it's still sorta fast. Just lol guys, seriously?

80.00 - 90.00usd X3/Phenom II's pown that processor. X3's debuted under 100.00. I just don't understand you guys. So I'll just be leaving this thread now.

You and Mr. Numbnutz can have it all to yourselves, you two little cuties. :D
Click to expand...

I have an X3 and a Q6600. There is no comparison, the Q is faster even though it's running at 3.2 vs 3.7 for the x3. Try participating in a thread where you actually know what you're talking about for a change.
 
Disposed said:
If you think the thread is silly dont fucking post in it...

And the CPU debuted at ~$500 what the fuck are you going on about?

Quit trolling and head back to the AMD forums...
Click to expand...



uhh, going back to old reviews I see that tray pricing was $851
 
needmorecarnitine said:
uhh, going back to old reviews I see that tray pricing was $851
Click to expand...

This is true. Much of the nostalgia came from the fact that it dropped to $500 not long after launch, and was below $300 after about a year, which is when many people picked them up.
 
nalc said:
This is true. Much of the nostalgia came from the fact that it dropped to $500 not long after launch, and was below $300 after about a year, which is when many people picked them up.
Click to expand...

That is most likely the case. I picked mine up right at the end of '07 or beginning of '08 (can't remember now) from Micro Center for ~$250 (It was right when the G0's were hitting the market, as I got one of the last B3's out...) and it's been a killer CPU since.
 
nalc said:
This is true. Much of the nostalgia came from the fact that it dropped to $500 not long after launch, and was below $300 after about a year, which is when many people picked them up.
Click to expand...

I wish I had, I went the e8400 route and bounced around like a mad man after that. The second games started using both cores while maxing them out, those quads really started to shine.
 

"What will be the Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz price to be released in January? Unfortunately, you will also have to make an effort because Intel priced it $851. This is 2.7 times the price of a Core 2 Duo E6600!"

Exactly!

This CPU was only "good" if you payed 300 or less for it. So to those that didn't buy it on release day it's not the "good ole" this thread implies, it's the 2-3 year old processor you picked up when it started getting AFFORDABLE lmao. Which guess what coincides with Phenom II release. Intel's known for jewing up CPU prices when no competition is around. If you bought it on release just like 90 percent of Intels cpu's. WAY OVERPRICED!

There is so much mis-information posted in this thread it's unbelievable! The amount of tools in this thread is so high I'm starting to believe 90 percent of posters here are BLIND Intel fanboys.

The amount of people that don't know how expensive this processor was upon release is hilarious and proves that 90+ percent of the people here posting in this thread weren't even building their own computers back then or before then like I was. Posers, littering this thread with their misinformation.

The 851.00 is correct if you read old website posts. @ Newegg they were like 900 though, but IDC if you INTERNET CPU so-called enthusiast POSERS on here believe me. I have fun putting you Intel trolls in your place, with your silly threads from time to time.

I purchased a E6600 back then, like I said earlier because the Q6600 was so RIDICULOUS in price. If you POSERS new your stuff back then you wouldn't make this thread, but after all your just 90 percent Intel Trolls up in here. It's status quo idiotic BS fantasist fanboism over here. Don't make me come back to this silly thread with BS posts.

Anyone who wants to bench their 851.00 Q6600 vs my X3 Rana 90.00 unlocked bring it on, post some screens of CPU multi threaded benchmark scores. I'm confident you will lose 90 percent of the time if not 100 percent, since you guys just make stuff up or pull it out of your rectums :D Try me, seriously. Oh yeah you can't, your full of it. Leaving. :p
 
teletran8 said:

"What will be the Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz price to be released in January? Unfortunately, you will also have to make an effort because Intel priced it $851. This is 2.7 times the price of a Core 2 Duo E6600!"

Exactly!

This CPU was only "good" if you payed 300 or less for it. So to those that didn't buy it on release day it's not the "good ole" this thread implies, it's the 2-3 year old processor you picked up when it started getting AFFORDABLE lmao. Which guess what coincides with Phenom II release. Intel's known for jewing up CPU prices when no competition is around. If you bought it on release just like 90 percent of Intels cpu's. WAY OVERPRICED!

There is so much mis-information posted in this thread it's unbelievable! The amount of tools in this thread is so high I'm starting to believe 90 percent of posters here are BLIND Intel fanboys.

The amount of people that don't know how expensive this processor was upon release is hilarious and proves that 90+ percent of the people here posting in this thread weren't even building their own computers back then or before then like I was. Posers, littering this thread with their misinformation.

The 851.00 is correct if you read old website posts. @ Newegg they were like 900 though, but IDC if you INTERNET CPU so-called enthusiast POSERS on here believe me. I have fun putting you Intel trolls in your place, with your silly threads from time to time.

I purchased a E6600 back then, like I said earlier because the Q6600 was so RIDICULOUS in price. If you POSERS new your stuff back then you wouldn't make this thread, but after all your just 90 percent Intel Trolls up in here. It's status quo idiotic BS fantasist fanboism over here. Don't make me come back to this silly thread with BS posts.

Anyone who wants to bench their 851.00 Q6600 vs my X3 Rana 90.00 unlocked bring it on, post some screens of CPU multi threaded benchmark scores. I'm confident you will lose 90 percent of the time if not 100 percent, since you guys just make stuff up or pull it out of your rectums :D Try me, seriously. Oh yeah you can't, your full of it. Leaving. :p
Click to expand...

I paid $199 for mine thanks. Not that pricing even matters. Your CPU is new, the Q6600 is old and still keeps up. I'm not sure why you're so excited that your AMD chip can beat a 4 year old Intel, and has to be unlocked to even be able to manage that. You should have left when you promised to do so earlier, because you yet again helped prove how badass the Q6600 is. IIRC you made the same mistake in another thread, your arguments go so convoluted that you ended up proving the other sides point time and again.

So your NEW and UNLOCKED and OVERCLOCKED Phenom II can edge out a 4+ year old Intel quad that's no longer in production and hasn't been for quite some time. And somehow you feel that's a win in your column???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top