Would it be ridiculous to pair a 7970 with Q6600?

Rdzona

Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
751
Yeah I agree with so many of the previous posts. Stick with a more balanced upgrade path, it just makes sense!! You'll be utilizing the money you spend much more efficiently, rather than dumping it into a top tier card and not even coming close to using it's potential.
 

Solomutt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
200
Sabertooth 990FX, 960T, 16GB of RAM, and a 6870/6950 card. In two years, upgrade the card and processor.

Otherwise?

Get the card. 7950, though. The price difference exceeds the performance difference, as a ratio, yet the framerates will still be extreme. Just play at 40 FPS for now, with everything completely maxed. in 6 months to a year, a lot of new CPU things happen.
 

dr.stevil

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,147

Go for it OP. I don't think you'll be disappointed. You might not get every last bit of performance out of it, but it'll be a nice upgrade for sure.

I would, however, look into a better overclock for your CPU. 3.6 'should' be doable with the right cooler.

I'm running 3.8 on my Q6600 right now using a Megahalem CPU cooler and my system has never run better. An upgrade to a newer i7/i5 would offer a bit more performance, but IMHO, the little performance boost you'd get isn't worth the cost of a completely new system.

my $0.02
 

snowcrash

Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
712
That's because you were running a dual core on a quad core+ optimized game. A Q6600 would easily outperform your E8400 in BF3, any day of the week, especially with a decent OC.
1. Context is everything. Did you even read the whole thread? Do you have reading comprehension problem?
2. WTF did you resurrect a thread that is 2 months old? Do you like to hear yourself talk?
 

pahriah

n00b
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
61
It is your money, do what your heart contents. However, the GPU may be a little overkill for your CPU and thus may be bottlenecked by certain apps (as others have said earlier).
But, if you play game and do not want to do a complete overhaul of your system while wanting to feel the satisfaction of having upgraded something, that is a good video card.
 

Mr Mean

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
1,357
Or spend the hypothetical money on other upgrades?

The thing is a truly decent video card with some future proofing is $300 anyway.

Looking at CPU scaling benches, the CPU typically has little effect anyway, as must games are GPU limited.

The Q6600 is overclocked to 2.8 and I'd imagine I could do 3.0 with no problem.

I guess the only fly in the ointment is the few games that are CPU dependent, Skyrim is one, and I there's at least another I cant think of right now...

Overall I can rebuild my whole rig with an i5 2500k and budget $300 for the GPU, for $800, with obviously a $300 GPU (nothing attractive now at 300, would wait for $300 HD 7000 series).

But it seems simpler, cheaper, and possibly just as good performance if not better in games, to spend $550 on a 7970 and keep my CPU? See what I'm saying? The former system would be "better balanced", but OTOH in reality does CPU even matter much (within reason of course)? I'm at 1080P btw.

The biggest upgrade I usually get is when I upgrade video cards. But your current CPU will drastically hold you back. If you're planning on purchasing the 7970 now and then purchase the ivy bridge CPUs later this year then that's a good upgrade path. But if you're ONLY decision is CPU or GPU. Go with the CPU/RAM/Motherboard upgrade.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Have you guys seen some of these CPU scaling articles though?

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review/9

In that bench in BF3 @1080P with 7970, theres almost no difference between an Athlon 645 (seems to maybe be about equal to my Q6600 from what I can tell) and the highest end CPU.

I'm a little late to the party, but that was a single player campaign. MP is FAAAR more CPU taxing than SP.

And yes, I do think a 7970 would be a waste with a Q6600. I have a 5870 on a Q6600 and as far as I can tell the only games I have that would benefit from more GPU over more CPU are Metro and Crysis. Everything else hits a CPU wall first.
 

Durty

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
66
your cpu would be the bottle neck if you paired those save money and buy a cheaper card lol or upgrade the whole thing
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,546
What you cannot see on graphs is the smoothness of gameplay. The difference between a core2duo generation and a sandy bridge generation is astounding. You will have constant choppiness, stutter, frame dips, buffer read blips, and other eye-sore issues on any current generation game. 100 fps doesn't mean much if it's a stuttering choppy mess. New cpus are required to deliver consistency in next gen games. Don't be fooled by the graphs. This is why HARDOCP bases its reviews on gameplay experience. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN AVG fps and actual playable game settings.

I would go for something like a 2500k and a 6950 2gb card that you can unlock to the 6970 which can max out BF3. Same price as a 7970 for that combo :) If you need to you could get a used 6970 next year in a fire sale on ebay and have > 7970 performance on the cheap.
 

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
Wouldn't it be nice if the H would do a real world comparison with old C2D Quads vs Sandy Bridge quads. That would put all questions to rest.
 

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
^^^^EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Specifically a Q6600 at atleast 3.2ghz

Ahhhhh, so I'm not the only one interested in this? This is good, does anyone know if they take requests from their readership?

There's alot of speculation, but if we could get Kyle to do a real look at real world gameplay performance, that would help alot of us that are on a budget if it would make sense to get the GPU or CPU!
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
What you cannot see on graphs is the smoothness of gameplay. The difference between a core2duo generation and a sandy bridge generation is astounding. You will have constant choppiness, stutter, frame dips, buffer read blips, and other eye-sore issues on any current generation game. 100 fps doesn't mean much if it's a stuttering choppy mess. New cpus are required to deliver consistency in next gen games. Don't be fooled by the graphs. This is why HARDOCP bases its reviews on gameplay experience. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN AVG fps and actual playable game settings.

THIS!

Average people if your wondering/speculating so hard still. The truth is the single core performance of Core 2 is far behind the efficiency of any CPU CORE of an Core i5 or i7 gen 1 (Bloomfield) or 2 (SB/IB), and even the Athlon II/Phenom II/FX.

I personally had an E6600 and UPGRADED to a Rana 455 Athlon II.

Same everything before I pulled the old Core 2 out. My E6600 gets 0.50 score in CB 11.5 single thread test, my Athlon II gets 1.12 it's more than twice as fast per core!!

I ran it with the same Hitachi 1 TB Sata 7200 Hard Drive, same 260GTX, I had until about 5 months ago I updated to 560Ti which I needed after getting a 120HZ display no more 60FPS good enough crap for me 100+ now) the memory was 2GB DDR800 vs DDR 3 1333 though at the time.

When my Newegg order came in, I quickly removed the 775 mobo, memory, 260GTX and the E6600 CPU @ 3.0 GHz. Slapped in the Athlon II X3 @ 3.3GHz stock, and 4GB DDR3, 260GTX, AM3 mobo.

Fired up TeamFortress2 ( My Windows 7 installation didn't need any updating) same exact settings blah blah blah. Guess what? Online multiplayer was damn smooth after that, no micro stuttering (when I spun my character around+higher FPS because the Core 2 will bottlenck EVEN A 260GTX+ series GPU! From those weak cores, a GPU from 2008 is gimped up! I was running the Same exact GPU same driver, same OS, hard drive etc. Now if you play SP games all day it's slightly less noticeable but online (you don't compete against weak/easy/slow behind Artifical Intelligence..hehe not always anyhow sometimes there's HACKERZ ;)) It's a HUGE difference in competitiveness (milliseconds DO matter! It's just simply that Core 2 architecture has small bottlenecks and horrible Single Core effiency, and you won't see it in Frame charts online, just in buttery smooth real world gameplay.

So what I'm getting at is that if a crummy 79.99 Athlon II can whoop a Core 2 Duo (because C2D/Q single core performance sux/ is bottlenecked and cant keep up in 2011-2012 or 2008 haha!), imagine what a Phenom II, FX, i5 or i7 will do (it ='s smoother online gameplay)

It all depends on the online game engine (how demanding) and how much minimum FPS you want IMHO. Luckily for me TF2 and Valve games are my primary MP games of choice for now so I don't need a super expensive (over 200.00 CPU to max out and obtain 100 minimum FPS when I'm online now in TF2. My games maxed out, I mean NO STUTTER which trust me I thought back in 2007-8 TF2 was stutter free on my E6600+260GTX pulling 60fps, all it was was I was clueless about system smoothness, but that only changes when you move onto superior tech. When I play TF2 I can always get top spott on the server I'm in. If you never experience a higher end system playing your favorite online games with similar OS/hardware but different CPU then you won't ever REALLY know, and I don't really care but maybe you should. :eek:
 

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
So you're tell me that a triple core Athlon 2 is does better in games and would push a newer gen videocard better than an old C2D quad? I thought C2D quads were equivalent to Phenom 2's?
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
So you're tell me that a triple core Athlon 2 is does better in games and would push a newer gen videocard better than an old C2D quad? I thought C2D quads were equivalent to Phenom 2's?

I haven't tested C2Q's personally, but I've done the research online and know what the Core2 architecture does in Single Core efficiency based on my E6600 purchase back when it was new and recently re-ran tests, and yeah it's FAR weaker. When Intel dropped down from 65nm to 45nm on the Core2 arc. it was significantly better in SC tests if highly OC'd (think 4GHz) then you can get above a 1.0 in SC test. Yet most people have theirs @ 3.5GHz or so usually 3.0-3.4 GHz.

Look at these red lines that show how efficient the Qx6700 is compared to Phenoms. Which ones are on the top? Which CPU's are on top of those CPU's etc. ;) You have to also factor in multi threading performance sometimes, but usually SC score tells you how much more efficient a new CPU can be for you and beneficial for your GPU/System etc. with a simple CB 11.5 Single thread test imho. If you can get a 45nm Q6XXX CPU to 4.0GHz it's prob equivalent to an lowly (under 100.00 Athlon II @ 4GHz.

2guaaeq.gif


BTW my unlocked and OC'd X3 scores better than that AMD Phenom II X5 975 BE in both tests but only slightly 1.12 / 4.40 vs. that 1.09 / 4.27. Probly cranks out way more heat as well! :D My score also matches up nicely and is better than the i5 750 stock. So yes. And I'm not trying to be a dick, just trying to inform.
 
Last edited:

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
So you're tell me that a triple core Athlon 2 is does better in games and would push a newer gen videocard better than an old C2D quad? I thought C2D quads were equivalent to Phenom 2's?

No, it doesn't. I have an Athlon II X3 and a Q6600. The Q6600 blows it away in everything except power consumption.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
I figure I better add this so you don't think I'm lying to you, but an i5 750 OC'd would be faster than my Athlon II obviously.

I built this over a year ago before SB was even released. ;) So back then, an i5 CPU performance for less overall cost from AMD intrigued me, everyone is different. I like low cost / high performance by OC'ing, that's my style and is not for everyone.

But my Athlon II is faster than a stock i5 750 from Intel, and far faster than a stock Q6600 from Intel. I also think if you add in the cost of my Noctua cooler it's still less if buying new in box 1+ year ago. I remember looking @ Q8400 which was like worse than a Q6600 or about the same performance (I forget) but on Newegg back then those things were like 200.00 (Now they don't even sell 775 Quads on Newegg). So I didn't want anything to do with my 775 platform back then, it was far overpriced imo and I sold it.

But if you have the money nowdays just go with the 2500k/2600k/2700k obviously. But now I've waited to long and would go for the IB platform which I think will have the best price /performance for today's climate or maybe a 2500k is, I'm not exactly sure yet.

2csc28z.png
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
No, it doesn't. I have an Athlon II X3 and a Q6600. The Q6600 blows it away in everything except power consumption.

SHOW ME YOUR CB SCORE with that Q6600 AND YOU CAN WIN :D

You won't :) and I win until you can back your mouth up.

Pic or didn't happen. :D My pic happened it's real, your mouth is fake. haha
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I don't need to show you CB because I don't play CB I don't use CB. I use real applications and games and my Q6600 blows it away. If my X3 was better, I'd have it listed as my main sig. You not believing it doesn't make it any less true. Enjoy your X3.

Most everyone around here already knows when it comes to CPU comparisons, just about everything that comes out of your mouth is garbage. Maybe if you had some credibility I'd be inclined to show you how crappy BF3 plays on the X3 compared to the Q6600.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Hey I also just noticed that my X3 unlocked and OC'd matches an i7 920 stock SC score look at it in CB 11.5 on the pic I posted :cool:...btw where the heck is your score? :p My x3 = EDIT i7 960 stock wow I'm cool!
 
Last edited:

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
That's an i7 960 stock, i7 920 stock is 2.66. Nehalems can get 4Ghz easy which will rape your x3 up and down.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+X3+455

Check out which CPU that the Athlon II X3 455 is right above... and thats without a core unlock. ;)

I need to bench my 4.0 920 against my 5 core 960T at 3.8ghz and see what's up in BF3 and in video encoding.

RISK VS REWARD. I took it with my X3 and won.

Oh and I know an i5/i7 OC'd will rape my X3, that's why I said i5 750 STOCK vs OC/Unlocked X3 lol!

[HARD OCP is the name of the the site last I checked? Hardware Overclockers Comparison Page yeah that's me. ;)]

So based on facts and not just fake words. From an X3 if he OC's and unlocks up to a PII X4 or new BD FX OC'd to even the current SB i5 and i7 will be better for him compared to his Q6600 @ 2.8GHz. Got it?

I don't need to show you CB because I don't play CB I don't use CB. I use real applications and games and my Q6600 blows it away. If my X3 was better, I'd have it listed as my main sig. You not believing it doesn't make it any less true. Enjoy your X3.

Most everyone around here already knows when it comes to CPU comparisons, just about everything that comes out of your mouth is garbage. Maybe if you had some credibility I'd be inclined to show you how crappy BF3 plays on the X3 compared to the Q6600.

Anyhow I thought maybe you could read, and comprehend my bench scores. It eludes you. The point I am proving is that this thread starter has a Q6600 @ 2.8GHz. I'm telling him which CPU's are low cost and out perform it based on MY experience OC'ing. And comparing to a real benchmark that (every site on the web I've seen) uses to prove which CPU has a faster single core performance, as well as Multi-Core.

Your giving me crap cuz I like AMD and some Intel CPU's just not yours, that's fine I'm used to this life and all the e-hate it brings ;) Some people get a 6950 and unlock it to 6970 does that make it not perform the same as a 6970? Some get X2/X3/X4 and unlock it, doesn't cost anything but the time to check and it reaps more performance.

Why dis on free better performance? I thought this site was about better PC performance and gaining knowledge from people who use the stuff and test it out...apparently your the post police and want to try and police me (insecure)

[HARD OCP is the name of the the site last I checked? Hardware Overclockers Comparison Page yeah that's me. You should chill and run that CB on your system, and see the difference, but I think your system can't handle it and you play pong with it. So yeah don't embarrass yourself.]
 

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
I'm completely confused right now. So which is better at pushing a 7XXX serious videocard, an Athlon quad or a C2Q?
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
I'm completely confused right now. So which is better at pushing a 7XXX serious videocard, an Athlon quad or a C2Q?

STOCK Athlon II X4 840 trumps a STOCK Q6700...see?

Q6700 is also above a Q6600 in performance. (I posted this pic earlier btw maybe you missed it.)

2500k is above both those CPU's by a good margin as well.

2guaaeq.gif
 

Nearsite

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
965
Wow, I've always thought that a C2Q was better than it's Phenom equivalent. So if you running a C2Q then it would be cheaper to upgrade to an AMD solution plus the 7XXX video card becuase you would see increasted performance in games like BF3? (Assuming you can't afford a 2500)
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
It is. You're asking about gaming performance he's giving you cinebench.
 

Scheibler1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
1,430
I wouldn't trade my Q6600 for an X3! You are comparing your overclocked X3 to a stock Q6600! A stock Q6600 is 2.4ghz. Most Q6600's will do 3.0, some up to 3.8ghz. I've got mine at 3.3 and the only thing I'de upgrade to is a i5/i7.However, like the original poster I would get a new video card first. BF3 doesn't even have my Q6600 pegged anywhere near 100% load at 3ghz.

I guess a good question would be. Whats the fastest GPU you can get before it starts to get bottlenecked by a Q6600 around 3.2ghz as that is the average Q6600 OC
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I wouldn't trade my Q6600 for an X3! You are comparing your overclocked X3 to a stock Q6600! A stock Q6600 is 2.4ghz. Most Q6600's will do 3.0, some up to 3.8ghz. I've got mine at 3.3 and the only thing I'de upgrade to is a i5/i7.However, like the original poster I would get a new video card first. BF3 doesn't even have my Q6600 pegged anywhere near 100% load at 3ghz.

I guess a good question would be. Whats the fastest GPU you can get before it starts to get bottlenecked by a Q6600 around 3.2ghz as that is the average Q6600 OC

Don't know about that... BF3 MP can peg my Q6600 running at 3.2GHz quite easily
 

Scheibler1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
1,430
Do you have stuff running in the background? Everytime I check task manager I have never seen it maxed out. I'm also @ 1080P btw
 

u3b3rg33k

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
84
Hmmm. Current rig: Q6700@ 3.0, 6950 (unlocked) @ 910/1320. I notice cpu limitation only in SC2, near the end of maps when there's epic rushing (or at the 40 minute mark in tug-0-war). I'm almost never the first person to get the "your computer is slowing down the game" notice.

I usually have to pause f@h around 3/4 of the way though custom maps to maintain a decent framerate (folding smp & gpu).
 

u3b3rg33k

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
84
^^^^EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Specifically a Q6600 at atleast 3.2ghz
Ahhhhh, so I'm not the only one interested in this? This is good, does anyone know if they take requests from their readership?

There's alot of speculation, but if we could get Kyle to do a real look at real world gameplay performance, that would help alot of us that are on a budget if it would make sense to get the GPU or CPU!

I'd like to see this as well. According to my guestimath, a 3.0GHz c2q is roughly equivalent to a stock i5-750.
 

gurusan

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
95
On average the i5 is slightly faster....but in a few games it;s dramatically faster.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Do you have stuff running in the background? Everytime I check task manager I have never seen it maxed out. I'm also @ 1080P btw

Of course, I've got several processes running but none taking a significant amount of CPU time. Trust me on this, you're kidding yourself if you think a Q6600 (at any speed really) isn't going to be taxed by BF3 unless you've got your settings so unbalanced that your GPU is a very major bottleneck. Also, looking at task manager doesn't really tell you the full story. Threaded games like BF3 still have one main thread, if that one thread is being CPU limited, the game is CPU limited even though your overall CPU usage shows under 100%
 

rushaoz

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
87
Yea dude I'm having the same issue. My q6600 cant' even push my gtx 460 to 100% load lmao
 

Ticker305

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
1,077
You don't buy a high powered V8 big block for a camry just because it fits in the engine bay.
Wait for IB and Kepler for ultimate futureproof or wait and pick up a bargain used 570 and SB when the new tech finally hits the shelves
 

257Tony

Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
721
I'd like to see this as well. According to my guestimath, a 3.0GHz c2q is roughly equivalent to a stock i5-750.

I went from a Q6600 @ 3.4 to an i5-750, and the i5 is a much, much better gaming experience. Benchmarks don't tell the whole story, games are much more fluid with the i5, even at stock clocks, and of course not even close when its OC'd.
 
Top