![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Q6600 Nowadays
- Thread starter vict0r
- Start date
PotatoChip
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
If anyone ever considers and upgrade from a dual core to another dual core, there is something wrong there. I guess me saying duals are only for internet is a bit harsh, but can anyone honestly recommend a dual core for gaming now? I couldn't do it if someone was building a new rig or upgrading and old dual core. A year ago it was debatable, now not so much. If not for gaming or professional multi threaded apps, then what else would you use the computer for.. it boils down to internet browsing and maybe media center use? That is where I see the dual cores at atm. Intel seems to agree with me on this as I see internal GPU's in most their new dual core line ups.
Last edited:
CapnCrunch53
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 103
I think the main qualifier is that buying a dual new for gaming doesn't make sense. That's certainly not saying its not still a capable chip, I have an E8400 and it sort of kicked my P2 920's ass before I got the 920 to 3.5GHz. If you're building a new rig, a x4 Phenom II or an i5 is simply a way better deal; there's lots of cheap fast quads, and besides, you don't wanna buy a soon-to-be-dead socket like 775. If you're upgrading your existing 775 system, again you can get a decent C2Q if you really wanna go that route, so buying a dualcore doesn't make much sense.
That said, if someone's rocking an old, say, E5200 and can get an E8400 for really cheap, nothing wrong with that. And duals DO have their places, HTPC's, home servers, cheap workstations, a dual would make sense in all of these.
PotatoChip
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 69
I absolutely agree with everything you just said. The dual cores from the past performed great and still does for many things. I guess my biggest issue is me stereotyping users as either an enthusiast/prof/gamer with a need for a quad or just an average internet browser checking facebook/youtube all day.
It's just today's cheaper quads makes it rather hard to go the dual core route at this juxtaposition unless for more specific needs like you mentioned above. I mean we all remember the heated debates of the past that you just don't find much anymore because it's simply unnecessary
My e4300 is still kicking in my home server/media center doing very well with lowered vcore at stock speeds.
I don't think it's worth bothering upgrading to a Q6600 now. You're better off saving up and buying something better next year.
I have a 6600 that has been quite good to me save for overclocking (B3, BAD overclocker. I can get 2.8 if I do everything under the sun to it). But it's a waste of money for such an incremental upgrade. You won't really even notice unless you're encoding videos or something.
I have a 6600 that has been quite good to me save for overclocking (B3, BAD overclocker. I can get 2.8 if I do everything under the sun to it). But it's a waste of money for such an incremental upgrade. You won't really even notice unless you're encoding videos or something.
bore_u2_death
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 357
The best and most important question to ask yourself is: How much will my own out of pocket cost be to go from my CPU to the Q6600? And how much would that in fact be?
If the net cost is at the most $30, and your only use for it is gaming, I would say 'yeah why not'. But your biggest gains will be outside gaming, like transcoding stuff. In any scenario like that yes definitely worth it. If you OC it(which would unlock craploads of performance) then even more so.
If the net cost is at the most $30, and your only use for it is gaming, I would say 'yeah why not'. But your biggest gains will be outside gaming, like transcoding stuff. In any scenario like that yes definitely worth it. If you OC it(which would unlock craploads of performance) then even more so.
Actually a good Q6600 is still a good CPU (if overclocked) even now. I upgraded to a Q9550 that runs at 4.0 and in daily usage I can't really tell a difference between that and the Q6600 I had at 3.6. A decently overclocked Q6600 should still be good for another year or 2.
R-Type
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2011
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,805
Agreed, although the same can't be said for an e8xxx dual core. It really shocks me that some people still argue dual core versus quads on here.
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
It shocks me that people argue that extra cores are always better than more mhz and cache. Battlefield bc2 and metro 2033 aren't the only games out there, and not everyone plays them.
It shocked me that poeple were making that argument 2 - 3 years ago. I was always on the quad core side of the argument, and as far as I'm concerned, I won.
My Q6600 is still going strong, and I don't have even the slightest motivation to upgrade. It's simply not worth it right now.
I own both an E8400 and a Q6600. I have never once felt that the E8400 did a better job than my quad. Stock for stock an E8400 isn't much faster even in single threaded apps, but once you start factoring in multitasking, the quad wins hands down.
TO THE OP:
As I mentioned above, i own both chips in question. If you plan to sell the dual after dropping in the quad then it's a no brainer. The cost to you will be maybe 20 - 30 dollars at most. I would do that swap any day!
If you plan to keep this computer alive as long as possible, 2 extra cores will carry you a long way. I don't think your dual will last another year, but the quad will still be going strong.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
S[H]ady;1036339303 said:
Totally agree with this. There were probably 200 threads on [H] of people asking "Should I get a Q6600 or a E8400". I was on the quad side as well after having used both chips. I felt the Q6600 was just better at getting more shit done, and that heavily CPU dependent games would have more threads instead of needing more clock speed. People supporting the E8400 was better would usually say that by the time the E8400 was slow, the Q6000 would be crap too. Most everyone I know with an E8x00 dual core ran into a road block in GTAIV, BC2, or a few other heavily threaded games. Everyone I know personally that bought a Q6600 is still happily using it.
q6600 = smoother multitasking experience over e8400.
My personal machine has a [email protected]@Stock Volts.
The Family room pc has an e8500 at 3.8 ghz.
For 30 bucks... I guess its worth it.
My personal machine has a [email protected]@Stock Volts.
The Family room pc has an e8500 at 3.8 ghz.
For 30 bucks... I guess its worth it.
hehehehe. If only we could have gotten the point across 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure I used that example to argue for the quad back then (not the specific games, but multithreaded games)
I'm curious to know what games people are playing that really benefit that much from quad cores. I only know of GTAIV (because of its built-in emulator), and BFBC2.
I keep hearing Metro 2033 benefits from quad cores, but so far all the reviews I've read benchmarking between 2 and 4 cores shows less than 2% difference in FPS. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong benchmarks?
If I were to build a brand new system, I would buy a quad core without question. Dropping $200 on a Q9550 (or $100 after selling your e8400) on an old platform is pointless.
I keep hearing Metro 2033 benefits from quad cores, but so far all the reviews I've read benchmarking between 2 and 4 cores shows less than 2% difference in FPS. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong benchmarks?
If I were to build a brand new system, I would buy a quad core without question. Dropping $200 on a Q9550 (or $100 after selling your e8400) on an old platform is pointless.
My little B3 has been clicking at anywhere from 3.0-3.2 on stock volts for over 3 years now. It will hold me until Sandy Bridge, but that's when I do intend to finally move it along. I can say that comparing my Q6600 @ 3.0 to the GF's C2D @ 2.8 (won't let me OC it and she is decently savvy enough to know if I did) when playing games, the C2Q is far far superior. Even if the game does not use all 4 cores, most games we play will use 2 cores and will allow me to keep the other two for alt-tabbing without slowing things down.
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
nah man just drink the coolaid, 2 games benefit that means all games do, and negates all other logic.
By the way this is coming from someone with a quad core.
Here's what people who say what you just said have failed to understand for the last 2-3 years.
There will be games and apps in general that will run better on say a 4GHZ e8400 than a 3.2GHz Q6600, however, those games and apps will still run very well on the Q6600.
Now, lets shift the focus on games like BC2 where the dual cores in general aren't even in the same league.
Why go with something that does a few things really well but significantly worse at others when you can have one that performs well in everything and great in everything else? And that's why it doesn't make sence for a new comptuer to be paired with a dual core if you're going to use it for anything demanding
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
1. The q6600 is faster in bc2, but it's not life changing faster like you seem to make it out to be, and still completely playable. Remember a q6600 is not a q9550.
2. That's one game, there are others, but are also many where the e8400 is faster.
3. The crazy people that say the e8400 will be obsolete at the same time as the q6600 are correct.
4. It's spelled sense
5. My q9550 @ 3.6ghz doesn't feel any faster in windows than my e2180 @ 3.1ghz, however it's much better for zbrush and rendering.
R-Type
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2011
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,805
Will you agree then that most every modern game can come close to fully utilizing a dual core at this point? I think this is pretty much taken for granted.
Ok, now think about all the other shit you have multitasking in the background. I don't have unnecessary apps running (I manage them and have them all running for a reason) and my memory load before I launch a game is typically 2.5gb and cpu load is at ~3%. All of these other applications will be vying for the same two cores that the game is maxing when they need to kick up cpu utilization for a bit, something that isn't an issue on a quad.
But here you will almost certainly come back and tell me you don't have any useless crap running in the background and this is strictly a gaming PC so it won't be an issue. Well, even in the PC games that don't use all 4 cores all of the time, they are still multi-threaded at heart and can have spikes in thread usage. This is why the minimum frame rates on a dual core system are typically much lower than the quad. Unfortunately nearly every review reports average frame rates, when the minimum is far more important for a smooth gaming experience.
As someone else said, this argument has been ongoing for 3 years and at this point anyone left fighting for the duals has probably hit the zealot stage. Lets check back in a year and see who is still using their build...
R-Type
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2011
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,805
For video encoding I would go 6 core, I believe the Thuban's still support DDR2 in an AM2+ board (someone correct me here) so you could keep your ram and just buy a new chip and board.
That's the exact point im trying to make. Why get a CPU that will be significantly slower in a few things when you can get one that well...Isn't? I'm pretty sure I said that in my previous post. And the minimum frames in BC2 on an e8400 is quite a bit less than a Q6600 and I used Q6600 as a comparison to try and make it somewhat competitive. 9550 would be a complete no brainer.
If you go AMD, get a Quad/Hexa or nothing. There is no reason to go with anything less than a quad nowadays unless you purposely want to gimp your performance one year from now. I don't even consider the X3s to be worth it, as you can get an X4 for just $30-50 more.
I like my Q6600 and so far I have yet to run into anything that really gives me any issues as far as performance goes. All I really do is gaming and some programming though. I do want to upgrade to a i7 when I get the chance, but I just can't justify the cost right now.
Last edited:
Hijacking the thread is exactly what you're doing. Your question is unrelated to the topic and you should start a new thread for it.
I have a Q6600 @ 3.2 (B0). All I need is a new GPU since my 9800GX2 died and I'm running a 7900GTX...
I'm not going to upgrade until Sandy Bridge, but that's because the Q6600 does everything I need for now.
Does the OP actually have a performance issue with a game he is currently playing? If not, I'd be tempted to jump on the "save your money" bandwagon. Not because the Q6600 is bad (it's not), but because if there's no performance-related reason to buy it, why bother?
I'm not going to upgrade until Sandy Bridge, but that's because the Q6600 does everything I need for now.
Does the OP actually have a performance issue with a game he is currently playing? If not, I'd be tempted to jump on the "save your money" bandwagon. Not because the Q6600 is bad (it's not), but because if there's no performance-related reason to buy it, why bother?
I honestly don't know if it is worth it, but I have my Q6600 WC at 3.6 and it seems great even today after 2 years.
My friend has a stock clocked e8400 and my pc is definitely faster, but of course I am OC'd. If you truly can get close to 100 dollars for your current CPU, I would definitely make the jump as its only a matter of time before quad cores are more utilized by software.
I am thinking my Q6600 should last me AT LEAST another year or 2.
Interesting, i will look into it... probably not the best conversation to have in the intel forum, thanks for the advice.
I've had bad luck with the Zalman9700 compared to water or my TRUE120.
3.6 might be a lot to hope for. good luck though!
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
Read this review:
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/gaming_the_core_debate,1.html
Shows which games really benefit from a quad-core and which don't.
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
There you go mass effect and bc2. Throw in the fact that the e8400 has more cache and mhz and you would probably see it win in more games than the q6600. If you have other reasons other than gaming then go with a quad but otherwise keep what you got and wait for sandy bridge or bulldozer.
Again this is coming from someone with a quad core.
R-Type
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2011
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,805
Are you just intentionally trying to misinform? From the conclusion of that linked article:
Looks like more than BFBC2 and Mass effect to me, in fact they saw advantages with a full half the games they tested.
And what about the games that come out next month, or six months from now? They are almost certainly going to be on the 'more multithreading' side.
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, in fact I think it's been established that buying pc hardware for the future is never a good idea.
Those were the only 2 games that made a significant difference, and they are disabling cores not showing another chip with more cache and mhz (if you're ocing 8400's can clock higher, so no point bringing that up). Why is this so hard to understand?
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.