• 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.

looking for comparison info please :)

I

ineedmoresleep

n00b
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
30
currently have amd athalon 64 processor 4000+ 2.4ghz

friend looking to sell me Intel Q6600

is it much better?
 
TheBlueChanell said:
Yes. That's really the only answer no ifs ands or buts about it.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

It will be a night and day difference.

From the information provided, you didn't mention anything about replacing parts, sans the cpu, you do know you will need a new motherboard, at the minimum?
 
better at?
Desktop usage? going to feel the same.
Gaming? going to be a tad faster in the latest most demanding games
Benchmarks? Much higher scores to inflate the epeen.
Video encoding, very heavy multi-tasking, etc..? Much faster.
Overclocking? it has a lot more headroom.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
better at?
Desktop usage? going to feel the same.
Gaming? going to be a tad faster in the latest most demanding games
Benchmarks? Much higher scores to inflate the epeen.
Video encoding, very heavy multi-tasking, etc..? Much faster.
Overclocking? it has a lot more headroom.
Click to expand...

.......it's going to feel worlds better in every possible aspect.
 
Depends on what he's using it for. Me, mostly I surf and watch videos on the internet transferring files. I doubt I'd notice much of a difference. It would be helpful if he told us what he does with his computer.
 
This is what I was thinking of as far as gaming:
http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/oic0/temp+pics/fps+vs+cpu+and+mem+mhz.jpg
This bit of testing I did a while back. I assumed it was an X2 until I went back and saw that its just a regular 4000+ though. If it was dualcore it would still ok in modern games. If he does heavy gaming with a modern card then yes he would get some gains. Probably not imperative right this second but games are starting to use more cpu juice.



Worlds is a matter of opinion I guess. As for worlds of difference in desktop stuff.... I haven't felt worlds of difference at that from an upgrade since I went from a 500 celeron with 256 ram to a 2.0ghz Northwood setup with 512 ram.
 
AMD processors are so slow. You see they are so slow, it takes them 14 minutes to perform a simple ADD instruction.

You are much better off with something like INTEL INTEL INTEL INTEL PENTIUM 66MHZ
 
sdlvx said:
AMD processors are so slow. You see they are so slow, it takes them 14 minutes to perform a simple ADD instruction.

You are much better off with something like INTEL INTEL INTEL INTEL PENTIUM 66MHZ
Click to expand...

crybaby.jpg


:rolleyes:
 
harpoon said:
If by 'a tad' you mean 50% faster, then sure. ;)

World in Conflict
GRAW2
ET:QW
Crysis
Click to expand...

Like I said I thought it was an X2, but anyway yes I do call that a small difference. The lowly AMD chip got playable FPS in every game in that test. When you crank the video settings until it becomes a bottleneck you get the same FPS on every system. Arguably some of those games weren't demanding enough to allow that but considering you get the same visual performance with every one of the chips, then yes I do call it a small difference! OMG I'm getting 15 more fps than you at the same settings!.... erm wait, I can't feel any actual difference since once you reach playable every fps beyond that is just fluff...


Know how much difference I feel in gaming with my 3.8ghz Core2 vs my old AMD X2? NONE because I already had the graphics settings high enough that the GPU was the bottleneck!, not the CPU. Sure, in enough time it will get to the point that the CPU is too slow to keep the minimum frame rate at the playable level, but until then you will feel very little difference... derr....
 
There is a difference between 'playable' and 'smooth'. The X2 stands out like a sore thumb in those games because its 50 - 100% slower than every other CPU tested - in other words its a huge bottleneck. Every other CPU is getting 50 - 100fps and the X2 is pulling 30 - 40fps. This is average frame rates too, minimum frame rates would probably go down to the teens on the X2 whereas the rest will probably be 30fps+.

Considering the OP has a single core A64 as well, the difference would be even greater. He'll probably be looking at single digit minimum framerates in those games.
 
harpoon said:
There is a difference between 'playable' and 'smooth'. The X2 stands out like a sore thumb in those games because its 50 - 100% slower than every other CPU tested - in other words its a huge bottleneck. Every other CPU is getting 50 - 100fps and the X2 is pulling 30 - 40fps. This is average frame rates too, minimum frame rates would probably go down to the teens on the X2 whereas the rest will probably be 30fps+.

Considering the OP has a single core A64 as well, the difference would be even greater. He'll probably be looking at single digit minimum framerates in those games.
Click to expand...

Am way off topic here since he has a single core so this data is mostly unusable... but in defense of the "crappy", "slow" AMDs....

1600x1200 because that is about what I game at.

COD4....... X2 - 53fps, .........Q6600 - 55fps
WIC..........X2 - 39fps, ..........Q6600 - 58fps
GRAW.......X2 - 50fps, .........Q6600 - 86fps
Stalker.......X2 - 56fps,......... Q6600 - 58fps
Fear...........X2 - 95fps, .........Q6600 - 96fps
ETQW........X2 - 43fps,..........Q6600 - 57fps
Crysis........X2 - 32fps,..........Q6600 - 45fps


Maybe I am just a fan of low FPS but the only game I see where it looks like the 2.5ghz X2 had a problem was Crysis. All the rest of those FPS look perfectly playable to me. When I am playing a game and it has 80+ FPS etc... that just tells me I need to turn the graphics up higher until it is back down around 40-50. Maybe that is just me though. Unless I trying to be competative at an FPS then beauty > fps.



Anywho, to the dude with the 4000+, I am not telling you not to upgrade to the Q6600, it would be a nice upgrade from 2.4 a single core. Now I am just arguing with people.
 
On average, Intel CPU's smoke AMD chips. It's not about fanboyism (my first compy was a K6-2 350), but its the sad truth. Just look at the benchmarks.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
COD4....... X2 - 53fps, .........Q6600 - 55fps
WIC..........X2 - 39fps, ..........Q6600 - 58fps
GRAW.......X2 - 50fps, .........Q6600 - 86fps
Stalker.......X2 - 56fps,......... Q6600 - 58fps
Fear...........X2 - 95fps, .........Q6600 - 96fps
ETQW........X2 - 43fps,..........Q6600 - 57fps
Crysis........X2 - 32fps,..........Q6600 - 45fps
Click to expand...

The tests where there is a significant difference are marked in bold.
 
Scali2 said:
What will you do when future games already run this low (or lower) without AA (like Crysis)?
Click to expand...

Buy a new chip of course, because then it would be a noticeable difference from unplayable to smooth again. The longer you wait though the more you get for your money.

If it cant run with AA on the slow system though then it wouldnt be able to on the faster either, as that would be the GPU limiting the system. *yes I edit a lot, needin sleep*
 
Jakalwarrior said:
Buy a new chip of course, because then it would be a noticeable difference from unplayable to smooth again. The longer you wait though the more you get for your money.
Click to expand...

I doubt the Q6600 will go down in price much more. It will probably go EOL sooner.

Jakalwarrior said:
If it cant run with AA on the slow system though then it wouldnt be able to on the faster either, as that would be the GPU limiting the system.
Click to expand...

Not true. You're not necessarily GPU-limited. You could be CPU-limited at a framerate that is unplayable, so even without AA it won't run faster. That also means that with AA it doesn't run slower.
So you can't play with or without AA.
On a faster system however, you will be less limited, so at least the framerate will be higher and potentially playable. Even if there still is no difference between AA on or off.
 
ineedmoresleep said:
currently have amd athalon 64 processor 4000+ 2.4ghz

friend looking to sell me Intel Q6600

is it much better?
Click to expand...
You will probably not notice any changes.
In games you need good low framerates and all games today are probably done to be executed on a X2 4000+ processor. If you clock it some it isn't a problem. Wait to next year and buy a deneb. Then you have a very good processor for many years
 
kassler said:
You will probably not notice any changes.
In games you need good low framerates and all games today are probably done to be executed on a X2 4000+ processor. If you clock it some it isn't a problem. Wait to next year and buy a deneb. Then you have a very good processor for many years
Click to expand...

Same misread I had, its a 4000+ single core :( If it was a dual core he would be fine.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
Same misread I had, its a 4000+ single core :( If it was a dual core he would be fine.
Click to expand...

That's the question...
If he feels fine now, with his singlecore, then why bother upgrading? Just wait as long as you can, to get the most value for money. You can wait for Nehalem and Deneb, or even their successors. You'll get more performance for the same money.
If he feels he needs something faster, well, the Q6600 is pretty good bang for the buck today, and will likely be a good allround performer for at least 2-3 more years.
It's a very popular CPU on forums like these, probably the best buy for gamers/enthousiasts on the market today.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
better at?
Desktop usage? going to feel the same.
Gaming? going to be a tad faster in the latest most demanding games
Benchmarks? Much higher scores to inflate the epeen.
Video encoding, very heavy multi-tasking, etc..? Much faster.
Overclocking? it has a lot more headroom.
Click to expand...

This is really true, when I switched from a amd64 3000+ to a 4500e@ 2.8GHz I didn't notice much if any difference on the desktop side, but there was a big difference in gaming(depending on the game) and video encoding. If you don't play games and you don't encode movies or anything like that you probably wont notice a huge difference.
 
Whether it's a single core or dual core, the difference will be significant in many games. I went from a X2 4400+ to a Q6600 and there was a huge difference in several games. UT3, for example on my X2 would dip WELL below 30fps in heavy fights, making me completely uncompetitive, this is a thing of the past with the Q6600. The difference will be large in ANYTHING that's CPU intensive, even if it's single threaded and obviously no comparison at all in multi-threaded apps.
 
RamonGTP said:
I went from a X2 4400+ to a Q6600 and there was a huge difference in several games. UT3, for example on my X2 would dip WELL below 30fps in heavy fights, making me completely uncompetitive
Click to expand...
UT3 isn't cpu intensive. Very few games are, it isn't possible to sell games if they need high clocks
 
Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about as usual. You've already been banned once for expressing your incredibly wrong opinions and continuing to insist they're the truth.
 
RamonGTP said:
Yes it is, you don't know what you're talking about as usual. You've already been banned once for expressing your incredibly wrong opinions and continuing to insist they're the truth.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that one common game engine (the unreal engine) is developed so that it needs a processor faster than AMD X2 4400+ ?
Comparing cores for AMD X2 4400 and Q6600 are rather similar. If you felt the game slow it was something else
 
Kassler, you're always wrong and this is no exception. You remind me of Ned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrqy5S-H_A

I thought what I was saying was very simple. I'll say it again. In heavy fighting, UT3 needed more processing power than my X2 4400+ had. Period. The cores are not similar at all.
 
RamonGTP said:
I thought what I was saying was very simple. I'll say it again. In heavy fighting, UT3 needed more processing power than my X2 4400+ had. Period. The cores are not similar at all.
Click to expand...

So you say that all that plays UT3 with a X2 4400+ processor or less will experiance lagging in fighting?
I have played that game with one opteron 165 and nVidia 7900GTX. no problems
 
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=7

Look at the graphs and read the final blurb at the bottom of the above link.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=2

Read the first section there. Despite AT only being able to run the built in fly-by's to do the benchmarking, they still showed the engine was quite CPU intensive. The final game in actual game play is significantly MORE cpu intensive than the demo that was tested here.

You're wrong about the cores being similar and you're wrong about the engine not being CPU intensive. Like I said, you're always wrong. Next time, just post the opposite of what you want to say and you will probably be right.
 
Yes, I knew you were going to point that out which is exactly why I posted the second link and told you that the actual game would be far more intensive, especially multiplayer with several other people in all of which are firing rockets, flack cannons, etc etc. The flyby's have nowhere near the amount of action you have in the game. All those moving people and projectiles and explosions take up a lot of CPU cycles, especially when you're in a relatively confined area of the map and all of this is going on at the same time, and that was precisely the scenario where my X2 couldn't' cut it.

Oh, and not to also mention that the X2 4400+ is weaker than all the AMD processors listed in those graphs. I'm sure a X2 6400+ would have been fine, but the 4400+ was not.
 
"The Intel performance advantage drops to 7% on average, but it's much larger than it should be given that we're dealing with a GPU-bound scenario. Note that difference between 2.33GHz and 3.0GHz on Intel is next to nothing, thus proving the GPU-limited case, so we're either dealing with an Unreal Engine 3 issue related to either the AMD CPUs or the nForce 590 SLI chipset/drivers we used. We've let Epic know, but for now it looks like UT3 definitely prefers Intel's Core 2, even when GPU-bound."
Click to expand...

-http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=6

That also happens to be one of the ever elusive quadcore supporting games though. Personally I dont own any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top