Q6600 or AMD Phenom 9850?

C

CousinVin

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
393
Starting my first build, and I have a very cheap offer on a q6600 with pretty much a whole setup (only the ram is 800, but I can get over that), and I don't really know what to do. I've been really looking into AMDs, but now that it seems I can afford an intel quad core, I think all I need is some coaksing. I've done my fair share of research, and I can easily see the q6600 has more cache, but how is it on overclocking?

Thanks in advance for any responses!
 
I heard the q6600 is a really good chip, I've seen some pretty decent overclocks of it somewhere
 
Obviously you didn't do enough research: :)

The Q6600 is a good overclocker with the average OC being around 3.2Ghz to 3.6Ghz. Also, all you need is DDR2 800 RAM to hit 3.6Ghz with the Q6600.
 
Danny Bui said:
Obviously you didn't do enough research: :)

The Q6600 is a good overclocker with the average OC being around 3.2Ghz to 3.6Ghz. Also, all you need is DDR2 800 RAM to hit 3.6Ghz with the Q6600.
Click to expand...

haha obviously.

I did my fare share of research on AMD's because thats what it looked like I was going to have to do. right now I'm on a really tight budget. Do Q6600s all come with a G0 stepping?

Right now the deal I'm looking at is for a Q6600, aBit IP-35 pro mobo, 4gb OCZ Gold ddr2 (2x2gb), and a ZALMAN 9700 CPU cooler. what rpice SHOULD I be paying? I've seen Q6600s go for $160 used easy, the OCZ ram isn't that expensive, but everyone of my friends loves OCZ ram, the mobo could be a little better, but I can deal with it until I have cash to upgrade, and I can't argue with the cooler. I saw screens of it keeping the CPU at I think 17C.
 
CousinVin said:
Do Q6600s all come with a G0 stepping?
Click to expand...
At the moment, it would be very difficult if not impossible to find a new Q6600 that is not a G0 revision chip.
CousinVin said:
Right now the deal I'm looking at is for a Q6600, aBit IP-35 pro mobo, 4gb OCZ Gold ddr2 (2x2gb), and a ZALMAN 9700 CPU cooler. what rpice SHOULD I be paying?
Click to expand...
If those are used components, I'd pay maybe $280-300 tops for that combo. The CPU is good depending on the revision, the board is decent, the RAM is mediocre, and the cooler isn't that great. Although it might look cool, the Zalman 9700 is easily outperformed by coolers that cost less than $40.
 
Are you talking new or used? If it is used it might not be the G0. Still I would have to say the Q6600 is the better choice of those two processors. I like AMD but I am running a Q6600 myself and it has been one of the best buys I have ever made, even at $266, which is what I paid for it more than a year ago.
 
they're used, but he says he has all the original boxes and documentation. Even the receipts.

and its for less than you guys said, so I'm going to try to get this deal done. he hasn't PM'ed me back on that site yet though. And I'll still need a PSU. what would adequately run that and not really get bogged down if I were to overclock it to say... 3.2 ghz?
 
CousinVin said:
And I'll still need a PSU. what would adequately run that and not really get bogged down if I were to overclock it to say... 3.2 ghz?
Click to expand...
What's your budget, what video card will you be using, and how many hard drives will you run?
 
Zero82z said:
What's your budget, what video card will you be using, and how many hard drives will you run?
Click to expand...

chances are I will try to afford a gtx 260 or s 9800 gx2, and I'll probably go for just one 500 GB hdd. unless I can find a really cheap TB (doubt it).

my budget all together is probably going to be around $600 give or take.

I know some forums are kind of picky about mentioning prices, and I'm new here, so just someone please post if its ok for me to put the price I might get this stuff for.
 
I was running a 400W Enermax Liberty PS and would occasionally get a power down. I upgraded to a 550W Corsair (I think it was $70 a few months ago) and have had no issues.

Q6600@3.2, 3 HDs (2 are Raptors), GTX260, 4GB DDR2, etc.
 
CousinVin said:
chances are I will try to afford a gtx 260 or s 9800 gx2, and I'll probably go for just one 500 GB hdd. unless I can find a really cheap TB (doubt it).

my budget all together is probably going to be around $600 give or take.

I know some forums are kind of picky about mentioning prices, and I'm new here, so just someone please post if its ok for me to put the price I might get this stuff for.
Click to expand...

well depending on your monitor I usually would recommend shifting more of your budget to the video card. a cheap phenom or a e7200 will do 90% of most task about as fast a Q9650. (in the sense that that horsepower isn't needed.) That isn't the case with the video card. right now the best bang for the buck is 4850, and you can get inexpensive motherboards to will allow you to crossfire (crossfire 4850 are still probably the best bang for the buck for gaming) The one thing I would NOT go cheap on is the PSU. that is not a good thing. also don't skimp on your HD, a WD640 can be had for 70 dollars and is pretty fast. and HD lag is on of the biggest bottle neck on your system
 
CousinVin said:
chances are I will try to afford a gtx 260 or s 9800 gx2, and I'll probably go for just one 500 GB hdd. unless I can find a really cheap TB (doubt it).

my budget all together is probably going to be around $600 give or take.

I know some forums are kind of picky about mentioning prices, and I'm new here, so just someone please post if its ok for me to put the price I might get this stuff for.
Click to expand...

You're allowed to post prices. Without knowing them, it's not really possible for me to make any suggestions.
 
Well now the price was raised, it is for $280 plus shipping. or $260 plus shipping w/o the fan. for that price, I would be better off buying everything new off of newegg. I mean yea, there is a discount, but for a little bit more I could get it brand new.
 
If you practice multitasking I think you will enjoy the 9850 more. Otherwise it doesn't mater, you won't notice any differences in speed.
 
Zero82z said:
How so? The Q6600 is a faster CPU.
Click to expand...

If you practice multitasking then 9850 scales better, Q6600 doesn't handle that type of load as good as 9850. If you have a small screen and maybe just use one or two applications then the performance for these two processors are so close that no one could tell the difference
 
Zero82z said:
That is complete bullshit. Not true at all.
Click to expand...
?

Just try two computers (Q6600 and 9850) and do some heavy multitasking, I have done it and the difference is very noticeable.

Read about how these processors are built and the answer is also obvious
 
facebook said:
?

Just try two computers (Q6600 and 9850) and do some heavy multitasking, I have done it and the difference is very noticeable.

Read about how these processors are built and the answer is also obvious
Click to expand...

I have done it, and the Q6600 is faster. And I think it's a pretty safe bet that I know more about how the processors are built than you do.
 
Zero82z said:
I have done it, and the Q6600 is faster. And I think it's a pretty safe bet that I know more about how the processors are built than you do.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have also tried it and I can't understand if you have tested that type of configuration and not noticed that the 9850 does handle multitasking load better.

We just have different experience from this then but I have tested some computers and the result is very clear, I can't really understand if you miss it.
 
facebook said:
If you practice multitasking then 9850 scales better, Q6600 doesn't handle that type of load as good as 9850. If you have a small screen and maybe just use one or two applications then the performance for these two processors are so close that no one could tell the difference
Click to expand...

surely, you jest?

sorry. you are probably one of those guys privvy to inside info and the rest of us are all out here clueless.
 
facebook said:
Sorry, I have also tried it and I can't understand if you have tested that type of configuration and not noticed that the 9850 does handle multitasking load better.

We just have different experience from this then but I have tested some computers and the result is very clear, I can't really understand if you miss it.
Click to expand...
Well, unless you can back up your statements with some actual evidence, I maintain that they are incorrect. And considering that real-world benchmarking shows the Q6600 to be consistently faster than the Phenom 9850, I doubt you'll be able to come up with any proof to the contrary.
 
I just wrote about my experience, sorry if you were offended by that. You should go and get a beer I think, that will do you good
 
I'm offended by false claims. If you want to tell yourself that the Phenom was faster, then go right ahead. But when you start telling people to buy inferior products based on fabrications, then I get pissed off. We're talking about other people's money here, and when they're trying to get the best bang for their buck, for you to give them false information is very counterproductive.
 
That setup is exactly like mine and it's a pretty solid build.

Q6600 @ 3.2 (3.6 stable but hot)
Abit IP35 Pro
4GB Corsair PC 6400C4
GTX 280 FTW

You won't be disappointed it will run everything maxed at 1920x1200 other than Crysis.
 
Facebook would you please do something stupid and get banned already?

<looks around for an ignore member option>

Intel quads don't handle multitasking as good as AMD. Let me guess you learned that from a newegg review too?

OP I think you will be happy with either the Intel or AMD both are a fine CPU. I have had my Q6600 since it came out and love it. For my needs it doesn't even need an overclock and no matter how much multitasking I do it never bogs down, the system always remains responsive to all my commands.
 
thanks for the help all. Looks like I'll be going for an Intel q6600. While I probably won't need to overclock it much, its nice to have the option. Also, I hear a lot about AMDs bottlenecking systems. True or no?
 
The only positive thing about AMD right now is the good boards the less expensive. Since your are not overclocking you could get AMD Phenom II X4 920 2.8GHz and save the 50 extra bucks on the motherboard.

This might get you closer to the Q6600 but I would still recommend the Q6600 because it is the best processor I have seen in my life time in terms of longevity.
 
CousinVin said:
Also, I hear a lot about AMDs bottlenecking systems. True or no?
Click to expand...
Partially true. You basically need to have the equivalent to a Core 2 CPU running at 3GHz to avoid running into CPU bottlenecks when gaming. With an original Phenom, that would be about 3.2GHz. It's significantly easier to reach those kinds of speeds with a Core 2 Quad.
 
CousinVin said:
thanks for the help all. Looks like I'll be going for an Intel q6600. While I probably won't need to overclock it much, its nice to have the option. Also, I hear a lot about AMDs bottlenecking systems. True or no?
Click to expand...

no, my 9600 actually does everything nicely. Nice enough that I am having a hard time talking myself in to a phenom II (they are nice options BTW, about time they got a real alternative, and they are better then the Q6600) The only time you see these so called bottle necks is in synthetic benchmarks. real world is that my 2.3gh bugged phenom plays games just as good as an i7 would. (their are a few exceptions, very few) one of the reasons I like H style reviews so much. Also why I tend to tell people on a budget to go with a better video card and hard drive rather then cpu and memory. you will gain more bang for the buck this way.
 
and for the recorded, yes the phenom does do some types multitasking much better then a core two. it is however nothing your going to see unless your running virtualizing software or other server like functions. from a desktop users perspective its a non issue.
 
What os are you running that it can't handle sending the threads to the processor correctly?

Core 2 quad is a faster cpu all around, it's a proven fact. And the Amd offerings are not bad at there price points.

Sure, compile a kernel without smp support and hook a quad up to it, or choose retarded kernel level scheduling settings that send the same threads to the same core and it will be slower.

Lets all load up Bob on the quads and see who's document opens faster, sounds like a valid test case to me.
 
Valset said:
and for the recorded, yes the phenom does do some types multitasking much better then a core two. it is however nothing your going to see unless your running virtualizing software or other server like functions. from a desktop users perspective its a non issue.
Click to expand...

Virtualization software still runs faster on Core 2 CPUs. The only time Phenom has an advantage is in many-core server implementations where the HT bus greatly increases the speed of data transmission. However, in single and dual-socket configurations, Core 2 is faster.
 
facebook said:
If you practice multitasking then 9850 scales better, Q6600 doesn't handle that type of load as good as 9850. If you have a small screen and maybe just use one or two applications then the performance for these two processors are so close that no one could tell the difference
Click to expand...

While I have not had my hands on a Phenom system, I find this very hard to believe. My main system is running an overclocked Q6600. It's the rig in the sig. I have not had a single problem with multitasking.

I'll even throw out one of my normal multitasking workloads which I have been doing regularly on Vista64 and Win7 64. DVD ripping using x264 as the encoder, World Community Grid DC project, Folding@Home GPU client, 1-2 torrents running, mIRC, Thunderbird, web browsing with Firefox and usually a movie or TV show playing either encoded with xvid or x264. That includes a few gadgets running, Steam client in the background along with 2 temp monitoring programs, virus scanner and Windows Defender. Earlier I was also doing a little sound editing in Audacity as well as a little work using The GIMP. Occasionally I will fire up a game with most of that running.

With all of that running I don't have a single slowdown or problem with multitasking. Yes, the multiple hard drives to spread out the disk I/O load helps a lot but it wouldn't affect the processor at all with regards to multitasking as any slowdowns would be caused by a disk I/O bottleneck.

I'd say I probably do heavier multitasking than the majority of people here and if I'm not running into a bottleneck with the Q6600 with these loads, I doubt the Phenom can be said to be better at multitasking. The only times my processor is not at 100% load is during bootup, shutdown or when the computer is off (rare).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top