• 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 vs E530?

G

gsilver

Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
648
Given that A) Selling my current motherboard, CPU, and ram will make upgrading to Ivy Bridge easier, and B) Z77 motherboards are coming out well before the Ivy Bridge CPUs, I started kicking around the idea of using an E530 as a stop-gap until the processors come out, since the CPU is really cheap.

Between the two CPUs, how much performance would I lose, especially in things like file compression and gaming.
 
Well the E5300 is at least dual core so it won't be too bad, but obviously the Q6600 being quad core and an actual Core 2 will push harder in games.
 
I don't see the point. IB is not going to depreciate your Q6600 much more than it already is. I don't think anyone who is holding out for IB is also considering a used Q6600 if the price were right. I don't see any Z77 boards at newegg and IB is just a month away so the time delta between board and CPU availability is pretty small.
 
i have both. GF uses q6600 desktop (my hand-me-down). My file server is a g530 (awesome buy for file server. sips power and tons of speed).

let me know if you want any specific info.
 
Deathwish238 said:
Friends don't let friends do Celeron
Click to expand...

You are thinking about those older and single-core Celerons - the dual-core models (especially E3xxx and later) are basically cut-down C2Ds or (in the case of Celeron-G) cut-down i3s.

I've had two Celeron DCs from the LGA775 days (E1200 and E3400) and I'm running Q6600 today. Even E1200 was no slouch (though it lacked support for hardware virtualization - replacing it with E3400 fixes that). Where Q6600 shines isn't *just* the multiple cores, but the large (4096K x2) on-die cache - larger than that of i5-k, for that matter. (In fact, from my own observations, the greatest performance gains - except for the few multicore-aware applications and games - come from the additional on-die cache, as opposed to the additional cores; this shows up because I am running on a CSM/OC-hostile Intel chipset - G41.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top