• 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.

Q6600 Nowadays

djBon2112 said:
Um, what? That's EXACTLY what you should do... spend the money now to avoid upgrading later. More cores are the future. So what if stuff "doesn't need it" right now: it's there for the future, because stuff WILL start using it soon. Four years ago people were arguing that a faster single core was better than a dual core, and now it's been fully established that a dual is better. We're now moving to quads, stop making the same arguments they did 4 years ago that were proven false, and stop spewing FUD about quads. They are better, and worth the money, period. 2 extra cores trump a 13% clock increase, and if you are seriously arguing that the first isn't better, you're either very ignorant or a troll.
Click to expand...

thanks for not addressing any of my points. So cache and mhz aren't going to matter in the future either? I agree more cores is the future but by the time it makes a larger difference than cache and mhz then the q6600 will be as dead as the 8400.

Again this is all coming from someone with a quad core.

Just because you all feel the need to justify your purchase doesn't mean you should leave all logic behind.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
thanks for not addressing any of my points. So cache and mhz aren't going to matter in the future either? I agree more cores is the future but by the time it makes a larger difference than cache and mhz then the q6600 will be as dead as the 8400.

Again this is all coming from someone with a quad core.

Just because you all feel the need to justify your purchase doesn't mean you should leave all logic behind.
Click to expand...

the e8400 is already dead as far as some people are concerned.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
q6600 when oced still rank in top 10 in cpu performances for something that is what 3-4 years old that ain't bad
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
well benchmarks say otherwise, and using that logic so is the q6600
Click to expand...

You are trolling against every rational argument here and just repeating the same illogical points over and over.

The benchmarks DON't say otherwise, the E8400 is already bottlenecking in half the games out there while delivering much lower minimum framerates. For new games, dual cores are dead and this is evidenced by the number of these sort of threads over the last year as people look to go quad. An overclocked Q6600 will continue to drive single video card systems for another 2-3 years no problem.
 
R-Type said:
You are trolling against every rational argument here and just repeating the same illogical points over and over.

The benchmarks DON't say otherwise, the E8400 is already bottlenecking in half the games out there while delivering much lower minimum framerates. For new games, dual cores are dead and this is evidenced by the number of these sort of threads over the last year as people look to go quad. An overclocked Q6600 will continue to drive single video card systems for another 2-3 years no problem.
Click to expand...

well now you're just making things up, any numbers to back up what you're saying? Please would love to see benchmarks that prove me wrong. See I'm using this crazy thing called reality, what's the basis of your argument?
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
well now you're just making things up, any numbers to back up what you're saying? Please would love to see benchmarks that prove me wrong. See I'm using this crazy thing called reality, what's the basis of your argument?
Click to expand...

The basis of his argument is common sense whereby most future applications, games, engines, etc. will all benefit from more than 2 cores. You don't need benchmarks to see that 4 cores is more future proof and has more long-term viability than 2 cores as this is the direction the industry has been moving in for years as opposed to high clock speed.
 
Spare-Flair said:
The basis of his argument is common sense whereby most future applications, games, engines, etc. will all benefit from more than 2 cores. You don't need benchmarks to see that 4 cores is more future proof and has more long-term viability than 2 cores as this is the direction the industry has been moving in for years as opposed to high clock speed.
Click to expand...

Said better that I did, but that's the gist of my point too. It's just common sense. OP, grab the quad, OC it a bit (if you can't hit at LEAST 3.2 you're doing something wrong :p), and it will last you a few more years (at least until the next generation of CPUs). It'll be worth the $100 for you.
 
Spare-Flair said:
The basis of his argument is common sense whereby most future applications, games, engines, etc. will all benefit from more than 2 cores. You don't need benchmarks to see that 4 cores is more future proof and has more long-term viability than 2 cores as this is the direction the industry has been moving in for years as opposed to high clock speed.
Click to expand...

more MHZ and more CACHE matter too and will still matter 2 years from now, and right now they matter more, than more cores do with gaming. This, not what you are saying, is common sense.
 
Last edited:
butterfliesrpretty said:
well now you're just making things up, any numbers to back up what you're saying? Please would love to see benchmarks that prove me wrong. See I'm using this crazy thing called reality, what's the basis of your argument?
Click to expand...

In fact, what you're doing is the old mythbusters saying. Rejecting reality and substituting your own.
 
RamonGTP said:
In fact, what you're doing is the old mythbusters saying. Rejecting reality and substituting your own.
Click to expand...

great another blanket statement with no evidence what I'm saying is wrong. Where's the numbers? The only benchmarks I've seen so far back up what I'm saying. Felt the need to jump on the trolling bandwagon eh?

Crazy thing is I actually agree with the first post you made in this thread.
 
Sure, here's a user review

http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/659536-contagion-review-dual-core-vs-quad.html

My own results are similar, I own both dual and quad and while most games I can't tell the difference, several I can and the quad easily comes out on top. You should join the bandwagon of truth yourself.

I've been saying it for over 2 years. Anything a higher clocked dual can do better won't be by much. What the quad does better, it does so by a much larger margin.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
thanks for not addressing any of my points. So cache and mhz aren't going to matter in the future either? I agree more cores is the future but by the time it makes a larger difference than cache and mhz then the q6600 will be as dead as the 8400.

Again this is all coming from someone with a quad core.

Just because you all feel the need to justify your purchase doesn't mean you should leave all logic behind.
Click to expand...

I made the same points months ago, and I still don't have a quad-core (despite my rhapsodizing poetic on Q6600 due to spending some serious time with one).

Despite multicore becoming the new reality (even the Celeron and Turion have gone dual-core), most applications are *still* not multicore-aware, and multicore-aware games can still be counted on two hands with fingers left over. (Note that I said *applications*: every NT version of Windows has been at minimum SMP aware, and therefore inherently multicore-aware, and that includes XP. The same applies to Linux. OS X has been multicore-aware since Leopard, at minimum.) While more x64 applications should push the envelope there, don't count on it, at least on the Windows front (surprisingly, out of all Office 2010 x64's application suite, only Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook are multicore-aware). Developers (and this is especially true of Windows application developers) by and large aim for the laggards (low-hanging fruit) - quite a number of which are still in the land of single-core - P4s (not even Prescott or the HT-enabled Northwood-C or E, but the Original Northwood) and the AMD equivalents. Unless you buy an Atom, you can't buy a single-core CPU from Intel (or AMD either), and haven't been able to for almost two years. Yet we are still getting largely single-core-only applications (even web browsers).
Are the developers living in caves?
 
PGHammer said:
I and multicore-aware games can still be counted on two hands with fingers left over.
Click to expand...

Assissins Creed
Assissins Creed 2
Batman: AA
BC2
COD4
MW2
Black Ops
TF2
Crysis
Far Cry 2
Just Cause 2
GTA IV
Dirt 2

I'll stop there, exactly how many fingers do you have on each hand?
All these games can use at least two cores
 
RamonGTP said:
Assissins Creed
Assissins Creed 2
Batman: AA
BC2
COD4
MW2
Black Ops
TF2
Crysis
Far Cry 2
Just Cause 2
GTA IV
Dirt 2

I'll stop there, exactly how many fingers do you have on each hand?
All these games can use at least two cores
Click to expand...

And all they use is two cores, so should someone upgrade just in case they eventually accommodate more? Forgive us crazy's who use benchmarks to prove our point.

edt; yes more cores are the future, but future upgrading is never a good idea. I point to benchmarks to prove what I'm saying.
 
My q6600 with gtx460, 8gb ram, ssd (look at sig for setup) can run anything right now. Borderlands, TF2, SCII anything I throw at it.. it is playable. Although I use my i7 rig for most entertainment and my q6600 as my work/studio computer..

The q6600 is probably bottlenecking the 460, but it's working amazing. I don't plan on upgrading this system probably until this time next year. By that time, I'd move my i7 as my work computer and build a up-to-date computer for entertainment factor.

I had a Dual core before the q6600 and it ran everything fine also with a 8800GT. I moved to a q6600 when they were on sale at the local MicroCenter. Dual Core is still kicking as my torrent/downloading/ripping computer. Doesn't give me any slow down, really happy with the dualcore.
 
I'm not so sure your Q6 is bottlenecking the 460...

Anyway, I run Q6@3Ghz with 5870 and it chews up everything I throw at it. CPU also performs great for non-gaming tasks, video editing and photography related stuff mostly.

I've been amazed at how well the Q6600 has held up, had two of them in the last year, also have a system with a Q9550. Next system - as of this moment, I have no reason to upgrade yet - will probably be i7, but I'll still keep the Q6's and use them in server/Linux workstation.
 
PGHammer said:
I made the same points months ago, and I still don't have a quad-core (despite my rhapsodizing poetic on Q6600 due to spending some serious time with one).

Despite multicore becoming the new reality (even the Celeron and Turion have gone dual-core), most applications are *still* not multicore-aware, and multicore-aware games can still be counted on two hands with fingers left over. (Note that I said *applications*: every NT version of Windows has been at minimum SMP aware, and therefore inherently multicore-aware, and that includes XP. The same applies to Linux. OS X has been multicore-aware since Leopard, at minimum.) While more x64 applications should push the envelope there, don't count on it, at least on the Windows front (surprisingly, out of all Office 2010 x64's application suite, only Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook are multicore-aware). Developers (and this is especially true of Windows application developers) by and large aim for the laggards (low-hanging fruit) - quite a number of which are still in the land of single-core - P4s (not even Prescott or the HT-enabled Northwood-C or E, but the Original Northwood) and the AMD equivalents. Unless you buy an Atom, you can't buy a single-core CPU from Intel (or AMD either), and haven't been able to for almost two years. Yet we are still getting largely single-core-only applications (even web browsers).
Are the developers living in caves?
Click to expand...

I see this complaint a lot, so I'd like to throw my code monkey perspective out there. Coding an app to take advantage of multiple threads and/or processes is hard. To really do it right, your app often has to be written from the ground-up to really see big benefits. Also, not all problems are suited to mutli-threading.

Where I work, we're starting to encounter multicore even in the embedded cpu space. We're now faced with taking very old (some code is nearly 20 years old!), single-threaded, highly tuned code and getting the performance boosts we need from multicore CPUs. It's gonna be an interesting couple of years.
 
Over the past month I've been playing Fallout NV and COD Blops and both titles reguarly peg all 4 of my cores above 80% during gameplay. So at core 2 levels of ipc, these games are utilizing over 12 ghz of paralell processing power. Unless your dual is at 6 ghz, you simply cannot match this.

All the complaining people have been doing about Black Ops performance? They're pretty much all running duals, the game runs great on quad cores. To all the posters who have been posting for 3 years that games don't use more than 2 cores, you need to stop looking at your colon and face reality. In addition to the review I posted earlier in the thread where half the games they tested benefited from the quad, all the new blockbuster titles are coming out ready to tear into 4 threads of power.
 
Honestly, I've always seen a difference between my quad core and my dual, in favor of the quad, even in gaming. But I think that's because of multi tasking rather than multi threading as I tend to run other software even when gaming, it sure doesn't hurt in that case.
 
I am not sure if I should get another mb that will oc this chip to 3.6ghz
instead of 3.0ghz
suggestions?
is it worth it?
 
I have a Q9550 I am willing to sell it is 2 months old and has the factory heatsink that was never used. It is the G0 so u know its a monster. Did not mean to Hijack this thread just though it was relevant.

PM me if you are interested.
 
Your Q9550 is not a G0, the 45nm quads were either D0 or E0.
 
robododo said:
I see this complaint a lot, so I'd like to throw my code monkey perspective out there. Coding an app to take advantage of multiple threads and/or processes is hard. To really do it right, your app often has to be written from the ground-up to really see big benefits. Also, not all problems are suited to mutli-threading.

Where I work, we're starting to encounter multicore even in the embedded cpu space. We're now faced with taking very old (some code is nearly 20 years old!), single-threaded, highly tuned code and getting the performance boosts we need from multicore CPUs. It's gonna be an interesting couple of years.
Click to expand...

Been there - done that (started out in mainframes; specifically IBM big iron).

Easy it's not; however, the benefits are worth it in spades/clubs/diamonds/Microsoft Hearts (unless you're talking really lightweight apps, adding multicore awareness improves both performance and efficiency over single-core; operating-system performance alone, including in the embedded space, is a rather large body of evidence, which is why even embedded processors are going multicore). Unless the rewritten code was badly written, in darn near every case where an application went from single-core to multicore, performance and efficiency both improved (one of the more surprising examples is Notepad++, a freeware text editor/replacement for Windows' own Notepad, which went multicore-aware in 2008, especially since you wouldn't think a mere text editor would need or use that sort of horsepower). But because the evidence is piling up and getting rather obvious, it's not uncertainty or doubt that would be the hold-up.

Besides, even if (highly unlikely) you ran only single-core applications, if you run more than two such apps, real multicore is more efficient than either virtual multicore (HT) or single-core, even at the same clock speed. The very fact that I only went from a P4 2.6C (Northwood-C with HT) to the E1200 I have now (cache stayed the same, but clock-speed actually dropped), and run more (not fewer) applications at the same time should be plenty of data for even the most skeptical among the [H]orde (while even Northwood-C was not the most efficient of processors, for it to get thoroughly waxed by a CPU running at almost half its speed means that clock-speed is far from the be-all/end-all it used to be).
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
And all they use is two cores, so should someone upgrade just in case they eventually accommodate more? Forgive us crazy's who use benchmarks to prove our point.

edt; yes more cores are the future, but future upgrading is never a good idea. I point to benchmarks to prove what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

And your virus scanner + System uses the third core, and that media player you're listening to music with uses the fourth. Versus running that all on 2 cores. Your argument works only if you ignore the fact that the system, and every other app you're running, is using CPU power too, and more cores means more power can be dedicated to your "dual-core only" game. It's simple logic.

Please just let this argument die. Unless you're talking 2.0GHz vs. 3.2GHz for the same price (which is a bit of a moot point on the C2 series because of how well they overclock; 3.0 is a good target for any chip really), a QUAD IS BETTER AND MORE FUTURE PROOF. Benchmarks say it. User review say it. Common sense (see my example above) says it. Getting a dual is just shooting yourself in the foot at this point. Even the people buying AMD X2s are just trying to unlock more cores on it.

I know you are trying to make a reasonable argument, and this is my attempt to counter it with a reasonable rebuttal. No, I don't have statistics, but I've used a Q6600 (old desktop) vs. a T7300 (old laptop), and now a Phenom X4 955 at home vs. an E7500 at work, and I notice the difference in almost everything I do. Not gaming due to a shitty notebook GPU, but in terms of general desktop experience the difference is noticeable. If it's noticeable there, it'll be noticeable in games too, for the exact same reasons.
 
Last edited:
If a Q6600 is available, you buy the Q6600. No questions asked. Seriously. /thread
 
Shambler said:
If a Q6600 is available, you buy the Q6600. No questions asked. Seriously. /thread
Click to expand...

Most reasonable people would have hoped this argument would have died 2 years ago but it keeps resurfacting. Every time I read a thread like this where people argue against quad cores, I lose a little bit more faith in humanity.
 
djBon2112 said:
Please just let this argument die. Unless you're talking 2.0GHz vs. 3.2GHz for the same price

I know you are trying to make a reasonable argument, and this is my attempt to counter it with a reasonable rebuttal. No, I don't have statistics, but I've used a Q6600 (old desktop) vs. a T7300 (old laptop), and now a Phenom X4 955 at home vs. an E7500 at work, and I notice the difference in almost everything I do. Not gaming due to a shitty notebook GPU, but in terms of general desktop experience the difference is noticeable. If it's noticeable there, it'll be noticeable in games too, for the exact same reasons.
Click to expand...

Well I was going to let it die but not now. You apparently haven't actually taken the time to read what I've said

1. Do you actually know the mhz difference between a q6600 and e8400?
2. why is nobody willing to acknowledge my point of the e8400 has more cache per core and that makes a HUGE difference.
3. Higher clocked chips can overclock higher.
4. I have a quad core, my point is just going from an e8400 to a q6600 is stupid because the e8400 will actually be faster in many things, not all but many, and for him to make the change would be a waste of time. Go q9450+ or build an i7 setup is my point.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
Well I was going to let it die but not now. You apparently haven't actually taken the time to read what I've said

1. Do you actually know the mhz difference between a q6600 and e8400?
2. why is nobody willing to acknowledge my point of the e8400 has more cache per core and that makes a HUGE difference.
3. Higher clocked chips can overclock higher.
4. I have a quad core, my point is just going from an e8400 to a q6600 is stupid because the e8400 will actually be faster in many things, not all but many, and for him to make the change would be a waste of time. Go q9450+ or build an i7 setup is my point.
Click to expand...

...and you could've. I wasn't expecting a reply, and I'm not going to give one back out. This is a banal argument about archaic hardware that I'll have no further part of.
 
I would recommend it.

I've had it for a year and I love it. I've been running it at 3.4ghz since the first month. It could probably hit 3.6ghz but I don't think i'd notice a difference so it's not worth the extra temps.
 
My Q6600 still running strong. I have yet a reason to upgrade. Although I don't really do any encoding or rendering. Plays all my games at max settings. Only GPU upgrades for me thus far.

Wondering if it will last me to 8 core CPUs? That is what i'm hoping to hold out for :)
 
I would get a Q6600, it will give your system another 2 years of decent performance for gaming and other tasks. I am still using an Q6600 oced to 3.3ghz, I have yet to find a reason to switch. None of the games out currently really push my CPU that much. I am patiently waiting for an 8 core CPU to come out, and be in a affordable price range before I plan to upgrade.
 
q6600 = Celery 300a's nephew. I say get it just to be able to say you own one :cool:

Honestly tho If you dont care about that kind of stuff, I would save the $ and add to it over the future for eventually a whole new platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top