The good old Q6600

I think we should say something about the e6300...default 1.76ghz and I ran mine at 2.8 constantly until I got my q6600.
 
Lyquist said:
I think we should say something about the e6300...default 1.76ghz and I ran mine at 2.8 constantly until I got my q6600.
Click to expand...

The e6300 runs at 1.86ghz at stock speed. I have mine running at 2.8ghz right now and I had it running at 3.2ghz for the last 4 years, which is a 72% OC !!!! That's pretty good if you ask me....
 
Last edited:
Yup, great chip indeed. I'm waiting until SB-E for an upgrade (for BF3) and this e6300 will continue to run at 2.8ghz (w/ Coolit Eco cooler) as my htpc until the day it dies. It can rest then...;)
 
My Q6600 is still running strong - just wish my P35 board had a bigger PCI-Express bus. Can't really do anything like X-Fire 6950's with this board without a serious bottleneck. The CPU is awesome, though!
 
Still running a Q6600 in my second desktop. And I think it boots faster than my 2500k... Really good processor indeed
 
fProcyoN said:
Still running a Q6600 in my second desktop. And I think it boots faster than my 2500k... Really good processor indeed
Click to expand...

i'm all for singing and dancing in the 'q6600 happy day parade' but it booting faster than a 2500k? something must be wrong there or there are other factors at play.

the 'boot time' thing isn't really that much of a big deal any more unless we're talking about mobile devices. the days of booting your pc and wandering off to get a coffee and a smoke are over. even with older pcs, sleep pretty much negates the issue. the 5 - 10 second difference between modern systems is 'whatever' now.
 
dekruyter said:
Nawwwww.the Q9550 is the one to have....:D
Click to expand...

The Q9550 while clearly a better chip does not deserve anywhere near the praise. The Q6600 paved the way, 9550 simply improved on what was already there.

I'm approaching 3.5 years on the same CPU/MB/RAM combo and it's still kicking along. Sure, I don't have the encoding speed but that's not a priority. And I may not be able to maintain 60fps in BC2 but it's always very playable and never turns into a slide show. That said, when Ivy Bridge comes, i'm upgrading!
 
i just started my migation off my Q6600, bought 16GB of DDR3 and a new case to replace my antec 900.

will be getting motherboard/cpu in early august.

pretty much decided if i go intel ill be getting a 2600k and the Asrock fatal1ty Pro (the number of sata ports is too perfect for my setup) i swore id never get anything with fatal1tys name on it but the board layout and sata ports is too good to pass up.

i have 4x 640GB WD hard drives i put in raid 0, a 60gb ssd for the OS (getting another 120GB ssd in the fall) 1.5TB and 2TB storage drives. also when i finally get rid of my IDE dvd drive for a blu-ray ill need 1 sata port for that. thats 9 total, the 10th is for the esata port and my Thermaltake BlacX Duet docking station.

along with the 4x pci-e slot being avaible for additional sata ports if i need them in the future.
 
nalc said:
But is that because the hardware was futureproof, or because software stagnated?

The current i7 chips at the same price point as the Q6600 can walk all over it. The 970 is near the q6600 launch price, has 2 more cores, a large ipc advantage, is clocked higher, has hyperthreading, and has way more memory bandwidth. Its probably just as much of an improvement over the Q6600 as the Q6600 was over something like the athlon 64 x2 4800+. It just isn't as obvious, as the Q6600 can run a high end single GPU gaming rig without becoming a bottlleneck in most games.
Click to expand...

needmorecarnitine said:
Someone who is OK with a Q6600 for four years would just as happy if not happier with the 2500K that should be useful for that long also.

My previous cpu was a Q9550 which I also bought at MC for $180 and I sold it about 18 months after buying it also for $180.
Click to expand...

You guys are kind of missing the point. Current chips have yet to write their legacies. Obviously technology continues to improve, but nobody knows for sure if the speeds or performance we're seeing from SB will be significant or interesting enough to hold onto for 4 years. Heck, with IB, we're already going to 6 cores so SB is going to have a very short reign. In the case of the Q6600, the 4 cores might have been a "shortcut" to greatness in a software market not ready for them, but it is what it is. The G0 Q6600 is still an incredibly powerful CPU in 2011. Don't shortchange it or its legacy because of Intel's brilliance. It's a far more significant CPU than the single-core laughers mentioned in this thread.

bl1tzk1213g said:
How come there is no goodl old E8400 thread lol :p
Click to expand...

Because it brought nothing new to the table and only has two cores. The Q6600 won.
 
Michaelius said:
I so regret dropping my trusty Q6600 and wasting cash on this AMD X6 junk. I can't even say i feel any noticeable performance increase with it.
Click to expand...

Thats because they are pretty much on par with each other...
 
Q6600 processor to 2500k about a month ago.

To me the difference was night and day. I like the fact that I went from 25-30 second boots to like 12 seconds. Much of that can be attributed to the MB.. but it has to be taken into consideration. It's definitely much snappier, and the power consumption is also nice.

The q6600 was great, but I got in when they dropped below $200 for my first one. Got my last one for ~100... the 2500k was ~$180 at Microcenter and overclocks to 5.0ghz pretty easily. A decent mb can be had for $80-$100. It's a great value setup. I like the q6600, just saying the 2500k is a good value as well :) The q6600 is obsolete, it was a huge bottleneck on my CF setup... I suspect that 2-3 years from now I'll be surprised at how well the 2500k is still keeping up with newer games/software. Only time will tell.
 
Dan_D said:
The 300A was a slot 1 processor and the ABIT BP6 used dual 370 pin sockets which wouldn't use the Coppermine Pentium III processors.

Some of you guys are so young or something. Intel had a lot of great processors long before the Q6600. And most of you that got Q6600's got them long after their second or third major price drops. About half the time it was out, the Q6600 wasn't the bargain it's remembered for. As far as I am concerned the Pentium Pro 200MHz is probably among the best all time CPUs of all time.

Great Intel CPUs:

<snip>
Pentium 4 2.4C (Amazing overclocker.)


I'm sure there are more I've forgotten but you guys are missing out on so many more which predated the Q6600 by a decade or more.
Click to expand...

Heh...I'm still running this processor at 3Ghz. Long overdue for an upgrade but it still pretty much does what I need. Putting an SSD as an OS drive really sped things up.
 
The Q6600 certainly has some longevity to it. There is no question about that. Especially when they are overclocked above 3GHz.
 
I remember the Pentium D 805 had a ridiculous overclock for its time.

My E4300 wasn't much of a processor, but I did get it up from 1.86GHz to 3.1GHz stable, a LOT more than 50% gain. I think others were able to overclock it by 100%.
 
FM 3370 said:
Heh...I'm still running this processor at 3Ghz. Long overdue for an upgrade but it still pretty much does what I need. Putting an SSD as an OS drive really sped things up.
Click to expand...


300A was slot1 and socket 370. I remember running my 300A costa rica clover leaf slot1 at 464 2.0v in a slotket. Ah the memories....
 
That was way before I built PC's, save for my Pentium Pro 200MHz that I used for a good five years with less slowdown problems than some of my dual-core PCs. However, I did like this old article from anandtech reviewing the mighty Celeron 300A

At under $200 there is no way you can go wrong with the Celeron 300A. As long as you are willing to accept the risks associated with overclocking, and have the confidence in your motherboard as well as your $180 processor investment, the Celeron 300A can't be turned down.

I probably would've bought one back in the day, too. A shame Celerons became so much poorer and hotter over the years.
 
I too am running a q6600 That i purchased in Feb 09'


My question to you guys is what should I be waiting for down the pike to make a new upgrade? I'm not building a gaming rig, but rather, an audio/video editing rig.
 
m_three10 said:
I too am running a q6600 That i purchased in Feb 09'


My question to you guys is what should I be waiting for down the pike to make a new upgrade? I'm not building a gaming rig, but rather, an audio/video editing rig.
Click to expand...

Socket 2011 or 1355
 
I'm still running my qx6700 which is basically a q6600. I run at at 3.466ghz since the multiplier is unlocked. I think my motherboard is faulty for some reason, I cant raise the FSB by 1 without causing instability and the system wont post if I up the multiplier to run at 3.7ghz. The FSB thing is just weird... I was too lazy to try RMAing MB. 3.466 has served me pretty well and still does. There is no issue with temps, I water cool with a 480mm rad.

I'll be waiting for Ivy or Bulldozer
 
I had a Celeron 300A at 464Mhz or something like that it was awesome.... The CPU i had for the longest time was a Pentium D 805 @ 3.8Ghz... I had it from release till a few months ago when i got a 2600K.
 
Dan_D said:
The Q6600 certainly has some longevity to it. There is no question about that. Especially when they are overclocked above 3GHz.
Click to expand...

I don't think any overclock I've done made such a noticeable difference than taking my q6600 to 3.2. Sure other OC's have given me a few FPS, made a few programs feel snappier here and there. But the difference between 2.4 and 3.2 on the Q6600, to me at least, was night and day. It really seemed to unleash it's full potential.
 
TwistedAegis said:
I don't think any overclock I've done made such a noticeable difference than taking my q6600 to 3.2. Sure other OC's have given me a few FPS, made a few programs feel snappier here and there. But the difference between 2.4 and 3.2 on the Q6600, to me at least, was night and day. It really seemed to unleash it's full potential.
Click to expand...

Yeah, once you got above 3GHz it really shows. I remember it wasn't long ago where I was playing Black Ops just after a patch was released. My performance was noticeably worse as I typically am. I was about to get on the forums and rage about how treyarch sucks when I noticed that for whatever reason, my PC had went back to it's default settings. Ramped it back up to 3.2 and I was back at the top of the scoreboard once more.
 
I don't spend a lot of time in the forums, but I just figured I'd pop in and see what was going on in proc land. I'm very happy to see this thread, and despite upgrading on my mind, this thread confirms my feeling I have no real reason to do so.

So, props to the old Q6600 for being one hell of a chip.

My first box was an IBM 8086-2 in 1993, with a 20MB MFM HDD. I've been overclocking since my Cyrix PR133-100mhz@PR200-166mhz, I've had a bunch of 486's, Athlons, Pentiums, and Celerons. This great chip has had the longest legs by far of any CPU I've ever owned. I purchased my q6600 in June of 08 and still running it today. Maybe we have reached a plateau of needed CPU performance, or that I'm just not into upgrading like I used to be. But with 4 cores pumping away @ 3.6GHz this is the best CPU ever.
 
Dan's list has it right, at least in my opinion -- I've owned many of the chips on that list, and they've all been fantastic performers (and values, save for my current chip.) I remember overclocking my 486DX2 and Pentium 133mhz by playing with jumpers. I remember the first computer I spec'd out from top to bottom -- a Pentium Pro 200mhz with 64MB of RAM (this was also by far the most expensive computer I've ever purchased.) I hit a dud with the original Willamette P4, but made up for it with the Northwood-C P4 3.0ghz a couple of years later. In fact, Netburst is still living on beneath my desk, in a soon-to-be 7 year old Pentium D 820 powering a web server (with bandwidth to spare.)

My hardware hobby rebirth came with the E6600, and I certainly enjoyed fishing for golden Q6600s a few years ago. My 920 (just sold) held its ground for a good long while, and I'll agree that the 980x is the first Extreme Edition chip worth having (although I'm not at all upset I paid the extra $5 for the 990x, which can sit pretty at 5ghz on water.)

I'd also have to add the 400mhz Pentium II to the list -- an excellent chip (although the P3s came out soon after.) It's sitting on top of my desk as an ornament today, along with several 733mhz P3s and the 486 and Pentium mentioned above.

EDIT: On further inspection I see the 400mhz Pentium II is also on the list. Good call.
 
Last edited:
I was running my Q6600 up until a few weeks ago. I remember when I first overclocked it to 3Ghz and it was shocking just how much faster it was!


Had I not scored a 2600K for a decent price I would still be running it, probably for the next year or two. The Q6600 is already a legend in the chip world and it will undoubtedly remain that way for years to come because it was the first truly affordable quad core. Even in 2011 it still kicks butt!
 
still using my Q6600, still does everything I need it to, though I'm considering building a new PC.
 
Loved the Opteron 165.. 1.8GHz chip ran flawlessly at 3.1GHz near stock voltage. Easy 72% overclock and it beat any $1000+ chip out there in both performance and OC ability.

That said, the Q6600's ability to still be a viable gaming option 5 years later is pretty insane. My one year old AMD X4 955 is barely better and I'm quite happy with this chip - will stick with it for at least 3 years. So some people will be happily using Q6600s for at least that long.
 
I'd still be running my Q6600 if I didn't get such a good deal on Sandy Bridge.

Got my 2500K for $205, the board for $89, 8GB RAM and 650 TX2 for $120, all brand new. Bringing the part total to ~$414. Sold my Q6600, board, and 4GB DDR2 for $190, making the total upgrade cost ~$220.
 
Last edited:
Offbeat said:
still using my Q6600, still does everything I need it to, though I'm considering building a new PC.
Click to expand...

me too, i had it @3.5 with higher than stock volts, but after 2-1/2 years i went back to 3.1Ghz @ stock volts recently and i don't notice the difference.

still waiting to see what bulldozer brings to the table before i upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top