E8600 vs Q6600?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Syndicatex93

Reputable
Jan 26, 2016
2
0
4,510
I will finally be upgrading my rig this year but in the mean time was wondering if I could get some input. I am running 8gb of ram as well as a gtx 970. I have had my E8600 stable at 4.5ghz and my Q6600 at 3.6ghz. I know these are ancient cpu's but just want to get an idea of which will hold me over and perform best until I upgrade from these dinosaurs. I know modern games are finally utilizing quad cores but will the faster clock speed give the edge or will it all come down to certain titles?

Thanks
 
Solution
D
Right, roughly equal with that overclock. Equally bottlenecking the crap out of the GTX 970 and equally insufficient for any modern game. Check that article from 2013. That's showing Far Cry 3 as barely playable. And lowering resolution just makes games more CPU bound so that won't help.

You don't need to upgrade your CPU every few years anymore but you do at least need a decent baseline. My 2600K which I bought in Jan 2011 is still going strong with a 980 Ti. I can max everything at 1440p. I had a GTX 460 1GB when I bought this CPU and upgraded that with a GTX 780 for a couple of years before I got the 980 Ti. But Core2 is just a bad idea with any modern games.

Newer games now. If you play older stuff then the system is perfectly...
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

Syndicatex93

Reputable
Jan 26, 2016
2
0
4,510
Gotcha. I figured as much as times have changed. Water cooling mainly. Running it on a 780i Ftw board from back in the day. Running a little toasty but i keep ambient temps down enough and the 240 rad does a decent job. Mobo wont allow me to go any further regardless of voltage. Think it was just from a good batch.

Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
boju

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Jul 7, 2008
20,717
2,221
85,890
GTA5 is recommended for quad but will run on dual core, Farcry 4 is quad only but will run dual core with a hack. I'd stick with the quad it's single core performance will be as good as e8600 even overclocked (might notice 1~2 fps difference between overclocked vs stock) and will be more reliable with modern games heading into multicore territory.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
The E8600 handily outperformed the older Q6600 in most gaming situations at stock speeds. The much higher clocks and superior architecture of the Wolfdale chips won over the extra cores of the Q6600. I ran an overclocked E8400 ( 4.050Ghz with 450FSB ) for several years.

Even at 3.6Ghz the Q6600 wont be much use in newer games. Tom's did an article a few years ago you might find interesting.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html

At 3.6Ghz the Q6600 is roughly equal to a stock ( 2.83Ghz ) Q9550. Most Q6600s topped out about 3.2Ghz. At 3.6Ghz it's probably a closer to equal to an overclocked E8600.

You are obviously seeing a huge bottleneck with a GTX 970.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
boju

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Jul 7, 2008
20,717
2,221
85,890
3.6GHz op's 6600 is running at, 'closer or equal to an overclocked e8600' is what it appears with your comment anort3. Being close i'd still favor the quad at this stage, knowing games already are either perform better because of 4 cores or restricted. I've heard of other games as well following the same recommendations, the games i mentioned aren't the only ones.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
Right, roughly equal with that overclock. Equally bottlenecking the crap out of the GTX 970 and equally insufficient for any modern game. Check that article from 2013. That's showing Far Cry 3 as barely playable. And lowering resolution just makes games more CPU bound so that won't help.

You don't need to upgrade your CPU every few years anymore but you do at least need a decent baseline. My 2600K which I bought in Jan 2011 is still going strong with a 980 Ti. I can max everything at 1440p. I had a GTX 460 1GB when I bought this CPU and upgraded that with a GTX 780 for a couple of years before I got the 980 Ti. But Core2 is just a bad idea with any modern games.

Newer games now. If you play older stuff then the system is perfectly acceptable even if the 970 is being held back.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
boju

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Jul 7, 2008
20,717
2,221
85,890
I do agree with you anort3, i own a 2600k myself and feel as you do. Between the older stuff mentioned (which both will bottleneck a 970 i won't disagree that nor does op), quad or dual between the two cpu's, which would you recommend in the mean time before the op upgrades at given speeds by the op?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
If he can maintain a stable 3.6Ghz on the Q6600 then probably that. Hell of an overclock for something that old though. Electromigration is real and a 10+ year old CPU has to be effected by it at least a little even at the safe voltages and temps in the link in my sig.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Deleted member 217926

Guest
You can only run more than the specified voltage ( and as a byproduct heat ) for so long before electromigration starts to be a problem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
boju

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Jul 7, 2008
20,717
2,221
85,890
Really depends how long hes had his 6600 overvolted/overclocked for which we're not sure of. I'm sure your advise of electromigration would come in affect. Longer the overclock is sustained the more voltage required.

I wonder if theres been any testing sites done of such long haul overclocks, i guess we'll know because its about time. My i7 920 in my sig is still used everyday and is still going strong since it came out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom