q6600 vs i5 2500k

N

neo4102

n00b
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
39
my current rig is still using the tried and true q6600 at 3.6 ghz, im considering upgrading to the p67 platform and i5 2500k processor, honestly in gaming will i really see a night and day difference or should I hold off? but honestly the processor ($220) and a mainstream mobo ($150) isnt really too much to ask in fact its a damn steal, so Im wondering if i sholud stop being a cheapskate and pull the trigger already lol
 
With that 6600 at 3.6, you won't see a night and day difference in games (assuming you're not GPU bound). You will see a difference, but it won't be that contrasted with the current crop of games, save for a few. Then again, making the upgrade and hitting an OC on that will be extremely future-proof, and will make a bigger difference on new games.

In conclusion, I don't know. If you have the itch, do what ShuttleLuv said. Between selling the 6600, the mobo, and ddr2 memory (assuming ddr2), you can make a good return.
 
It depends on the game. If the game is more CPU dependent than GPU dependent (e.g. Battlefield Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, some RTS games and some MMO's), you will see a night and day difference. If you are using several graphics cards you will also see a difference. All other instances it might not be worth it and an SSD would be a better investment.

What kind of games are you playing?
 
Last edited:
Honestly man i was on the same boat, then i pulled the trigger and i have never looked back (went from a Q6600 to a 2600k ). The system as whole is snappy, gained about 20-40fps in all my games ( gtx295 quad sli ) and general productivity just takes less time. just do it !!!!:D
 
I went from a 6600 at 3.6 to the rig in my sig. There was a very noticeable different, just at windows desktop. Everything improved, including games.
 
oshia86 said:
I went from a 6600 at 3.6 to the rig in my sig. There was a very noticeable different, just at windows desktop. Everything improved, including games.
Click to expand...

I'm making a double-jump - first from E3400 to Q6600, but only until I can get "BridgeWalker" done (I have a Q6600 - purchased from a member of the [H]orde - that I installed in the motherboard from Mighty Mouse not quite two hours ago; the lag was that UPS was late arriving; "BridgeWalker" will gain the drives and cased from Mighty Mouse, while the motherboard will go into a different ATX case) and then from that to i5-K. The specs of "BridgeWalker" are in my sig below.

I'm working from a live image right now, and even though it's x32, not x64, the snap is still noticed, even by my older used-to-dual-core eyeballs. (Hiren's BootDVD does not come in an x64 version - yet!)

What will *really* be interesting is the (re)install of Windows 7 (x64 of course - it's what I've run since I went x64-capable with the E1200 two CPUs and a motherboard back) - while I lose 200 MHz of CPU clocking (remember, a stock Q6600 has a clock-speed deficit compared to a stock E3400), however, it has a faster FSB, two more cores, and eight times as much on-die cache. (This was the defining quad-core value of it's day - much to AMD's disgust and chagrin.)

And as much that I'm glad my desk-chair has seatbelts, the future owner is going to this from a Pentium 4.
 
I just went from a Q6600 at 3.2 to the i2500k and I did notice quite a bit of difference. Sell your old stuff and you won't be too far behind for a great upgrade.
 
i am keeping my q9550 for another 3-4 months , will be getting IVY

my GTX 275 overclock is running quite nicely ..

I have no complaints
 
The change from the Intel® Core™ 2 Quad to a 1st generation Intel Core processor at the same speed should yeild about a 15% to 20% performance improvement running at the same speed. The move from the 1st generation to the 2nd generation Intel Core processors like the Intel Core i5-2500K should yeild an additional 10% to 15% increase. At that point you are some where around a 30% performance increase at the same clock speed and that doesnt count if you are going to do any overclocking with the Intel Core i5-2500K.
 
IntelEnthusiast said:
The change from the Intel® Core™ 2 Quad to a 1st generation Intel Core processor at the same speed should yeild about a 15% to 20% performance improvement running at the same speed. The move from the 1st generation to the 2nd generation Intel Core processors like the Intel Core i5-2500K should yeild an additional 10% to 15% increase. At that point you are some where around a 30% performance increase at the same clock speed and that doesnt count if you are going to do any overclocking with the Intel Core i5-2500K.
Click to expand...

While this may be true, individual applications, especially newer applications, may see even greater performance jumps, depending on if they are truly multicore-aware and multi-process-efficient.

Out off all applications and games I run/play, one of those I expected to benefit the least was the old Steam benchmark Half-Life 2: Lost Coast. It turned out I was off, and not by a small amount, either. The video stress test score more than doubled - from 56 fps to 117 fps.

Yeeks.

The Source engine is, apparently, thread-efficient and process-efficient in addition to being multicore-aware: how else is a doubling of performance, merely after a CPU swap (nary a single other hardware change) explainable?

Now, some games even *newer* than HL2 (PopCap's Bejeweled 3, for example) also gain by going from dual-core to quad-core - however, none so far have turned in punch-to-the-gut performance increases like Lost Coast has - so far.
 
It's worth it.

I went from a Q6600 @ 3.4 to my 2500K @ 4.4, the system is all around faster. An overclocked Q6600 like yours will still be OK for pretty much all games, but the 2500K will be more "future proof" as it is a lot faster.

I'm happy with my decision to upgrade, but that was partly because of coupon codes I had and resale value. I had some $25 off $100 at newegg codes. I have 4 newegg accounts. So I did 4 orders. I picked up a 2500K, Motherboard, RAM+PSU, and a case as four orders (Total ~$575 - $100 = $475 - $30 in rebates I got back = $445). I also sold my Q6600, P45 motherboard, and DDR2 RAM for $200, bringing my total cost for all of that $245. Easily worth it.
 
Its worth it going from a Q6600 to the 2500k. Everything loads up faster and lets hang time.
 
Yup, definitely worth it. Especially if you happen to live near a MicroCenter. You can get a mobo, 2500k and 8g ram for about $270.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
I've seen them get past 4.0 and had my old one at 3.83 for a few moments before I swapped it for my Q9550.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that at all - not even a little bit.

However, due to this particular motherboard being over-clocking hostile (atypical for an ASUS motherboard; however, I cast most of the blame on the *chipset* - Intel's G41), I've not been able to put any overdrive in it. However, despite that, this particular Q6600 is taking everything I throw at it and turning it into data molehills.
 
I still think 270 for a mobo and cpu is too much and its next to impossible to get that now for a i2500k.

Remember im on DDR 2 ram. So expect to add another 100.00 and a good heatsink and fan..
Lets get real fellas. If you expect to reach 4+ gigahertz with a i2500k you would want a decent mobo+ram.


I will just stick with my 9550 at 3.61 btw has more cache than a q6600

maybe black friday if i see a deal cpu+mobo for 200-240 i will hop on it. still going to be another 50+80 bucks and 50 for a good heatsink and fan.

I dont know seems like itts more logical just to wait. All the modern games i get 60fps at 4xfsaa max settings.
I am sure BF3 and Skyrim would be a different story. But thats 2 games and i dont expect running 120hz and could care less if i had more than 60fps . I never see dips below 50fps and most of the time its above 60fps.


I believe my processor my processor benched pretty close to a AMD phonem at 3.8 , cant remember which program i used
 
UnrealCpu said:
I still think 270 for a mobo and cpu is too much and its next to impossible to get that now for a i2500k.

Remember im on DDR 2 ram. So expect to add another 100.00 and a good heatsink and fan..
Lets get real fellas. If you expect to reach 4+ gigahertz with a i2500k you would want a decent mobo+ram.


I will just stick with my 9550 at 3.61 btw has more cache than a q6600

maybe black friday if i see a deal cpu+mobo for 200-240 i will hop on it. still going to be another 50+80 bucks and 50 for a good heatsink and fan.

I dont know seems like itts more logical just to wait. All the modern games i get 60fps at 4xfsaa max settings.
I am sure BF3 and Skyrim would be a different story. But thats 2 games and i dont expect running 120hz and could care less if i had more than 60fps . I never see dips below 50fps and most of the time its above 60fps.


I believe my processor my processor benched pretty close to a AMD phonem at 3.8 , cant remember which program i used
Click to expand...

I'm no more betting on overclocking with i5-K than I did with E3400 - let alone what replaced it (Q6600) - if anything, due to what Q6600 is capable of, other than showing off, I'd need to overclock *why*?

Starcraft II and MW3 are easily my most demanding games (one shooter and one RTS) - however, the bottleneck (even with bone-stock Q6600) won't be the CPU; until I upgrade to, at minimum, HD67xx, the GPU (HD5450) will be the bottleneck. All Source-engine games, anything based on UE3 or earlier, idTech 4 or earlier - pretty much anything other than Frostbite 2 or CryEngine 2 or later - is peggable at desktop resolutions with merely Q6600 and my current GPU - despite it being a notebook GPU in desktop clothes. The reason why they are peggable is that none of them use anything more stressful than DX10, and most go only to DX9c. With the bar that low, even HD54xx can take all the undemanding polygons that Q6600 can throw at it - and with such a low threshold, DDR2 is no bottleneck, either. There's also the reality that i5-2500K is clocked higher at stock than Q6600 is - therefore, if Q6600 is no bottleneck, even at stock, than i5-K at stock certainly can't be. (From what I've seen so far, any game that is CPU-bottlenecked enough to require overclocking even Kentsfield - let alone Sandy Bridge, Nehalem, or Lynnfield - is likely not efficient in terms of processes or threads, let alone cores.)
 
neo4102 said:
my current rig is still using the tried and true q6600 at 3.6 ghz, im considering upgrading to the p67 platform and i5 2500k processor, honestly in gaming will i really see a night and day difference or should I hold off? but honestly the processor ($220) and a mainstream mobo ($150) isnt really too much to ask in fact its a damn steal, so Im wondering if i sholud stop being a cheapskate and pull the trigger already lol
Click to expand...

Given what I'm seeing out of stock Q6600, despite the chipset boat-anchor that is Intel G41 (not in terms of GPU performance - I have discrete graphics in use; but in terms of no overclockability), if anything, i5-K will be a bigger performance gorilla than Kentsfield *or* Lynnfield. And if $150 is your motherboard pricing ceiling, there are decent Z68 motherboards in that range from quite a few manufacturers (two from ASUS, two from ASRock, at least three from MSI, and several from Gigabyte).
 
PGHammer said:
I'm no more betting on overclocking with i5-K than I did with E3400 - let alone what replaced it (Q6600) - if anything, due to what Q6600 is capable of, other than showing off, I'd need to overclock *why*?

Starcraft II and MW3 are easily my most demanding games (one shooter and one RTS) - however, the bottleneck (even with bone-stock Q6600) won't be the CPU; until I upgrade to, at minimum, HD67xx, the GPU (HD5450) will be the bottleneck. All Source-engine games, anything based on UE3 or earlier, idTech 4 or earlier - pretty much anything other than Frostbite 2 or CryEngine 2 or later - is peggable at desktop resolutions with merely Q6600 and my current GPU - despite it being a notebook GPU in desktop clothes. The reason why they are peggable is that none of them use anything more stressful than DX10, and most go only to DX9c. With the bar that low, even HD54xx can take all the undemanding polygons that Q6600 can throw at it - and with such a low threshold, DDR2 is no bottleneck, either. There's also the reality that i5-2500K is clocked higher at stock than Q6600 is - therefore, if Q6600 is no bottleneck, even at stock, than i5-K at stock certainly can't be. (From what I've seen so far, any game that is CPU-bottlenecked enough to require overclocking even Kentsfield - let alone Sandy Bridge, Nehalem, or Lynnfield - is likely not efficient in terms of processes or threads, let alone cores.)
Click to expand...

I just ran Metro 2033 at full max detail and 4xfssa DX10 and it got 60 FPS in some areas but when action happened it kinda sucked. I was dipping around 40fps..
I am on 1920x1200

so i guess when i upgrade i probably should just pickup another GTX 570 and go SLI, I agree there is some games out there that will tax my system pretty heavily.

What are you guys getting with your I5?
 
I'm in the middle of "switching" .. Q6700 on a DFI P35 mobo with 8GB DDR2 ..going to an i2500k on an MSI P67A-G43 w/12GB DDR3

I'm interested in seeing the difference under Win7 x64 .. I appreciate threads like this here :cool:
 
ThreeDee said:
I'm in the middle of "switching" .. Q6700 on a DFI P35 mobo with 8GB DDR2 ..going to an i2500k on an MSI P67A-G43 w/12GB DDR3

I'm interested in seeing the difference under Win7 x64 .. I appreciate threads like this here :cool:
Click to expand...

You should go 8GB or 16GB. 12GB is typically for tri-channel.
 
ThreeDee said:
2 x 4's and 2 x 2's ...I'll be switching out the 2x2's for 2 more 4's once I get a couple bucks down the road though
Click to expand...

If you're talking DDR3, 2x4GB DIMM pairs are still ridiculously cheap. (MicroCenter CL9 DDR3-1333 2x4GB pairs are $42 including tax in store every day - I have one pair waiting to go into BridgeWalker; a second pair, though overkill in the extreme, is so cheap as to be merely icing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top