I found a deal for a Q6600 system with 500 GB Hard Drive, 2 GB RAM, Geforce 8500, 300 Watt PSU, DVD-R/CD-R, etc. With a monitor and printer, I'm looking at about $1300 after taxes and shipping. Yeah, the card is by no means great, but I mainly do MMO's, so it's not a huge deal. It can always be upgraded.

But my friend is trying to talk me out of it, claiming I'll hate myself when 64 bit becomes necessary in the next...three-five years. He wants me to go with an Athalon 64 x2 (probably one of the lower to mid 5000 series), with similar specs. I'm having trouble finding an offer for such a system in the same price range, and I'm not even sure if it's worth the effort.

He says my system will be bottlenecked at 4 GB max RAM (which is true, the MoBo can't be upgraded past 4 GB even if it could support 64 - bit) and that I'll regret it in a few years.

I don't need the absolute best gaming performance, nor do I usually immediately buy the most graphic intensive games. So I guess, these are my questions.

1) Q6600 versus Athalon 64 x2 mid-5000 model. It seems like the Athalon is going to be more expensive? Is the Athalon really the better buy in the long run?

2) Are we really on the verge of a 64-bit revolution in the next 5 years? Will my 32 bit system locked in at 4 GB be unable to function in the new 64-bit world?

3) Is it stupid to buy a system that can't be upgraded past 4 GB, assuming I'm not buying a computer for another 4 years?

hey calleden,

here are some links:

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/in [...] efault.asp

first off, dont listen to your friend. second, the q6600 will pone the athlon x2 series. if you want any comparisons on the performance of the q6600 you will need to buy amds fx74. stil at that clock the q6700 beats the fx74, in turn the q6600 can be easily overclocked to the q6700 2.66ghz speed. why would you hate yourself when 64 bit comes around? if your motherboard can only support 4gb max ram, it needs an upgrade. if you want a good setup for gaming i suggest:

q6600 quad core - i got mine for $299 at frys but you can find them for like 350 on ebay.
2GB OCZ low cas, probably somewhere 4-4-4-12 - around $130
2 x 300gb maxtor sata 2 on raid 0 -- thats like $120 for both
xfx 8800gts 320mb - about $260 after rebates
550 - 750watt antec NeoH modular psu -- online for about 120-160
mobo -- asus or abit that suppurts quad core and ddr3(for future upgrade) - about 250

the rest is up to you but you can find that whole system for less than 1300 and it will outperform a anthlon x2 setup anyday. hope this helps. dont get an x2 please! its not even comparable to the q6600. if you go amd get an fx 74.

No, no and no.



1. Intel quad cores are 64bit compatible just as athlons. Almost all CPU's and MOBO's are 64bit compatible now. Aslong as you got the 64bit software which basically is only Vista 64bit, then you're set.

2. Core2Quads beat the Athlon x2's silly.

3. Athlon is cheaper but not worth it now with core2duo and quad, IMO.

4. Quad Core is MUCH more future proof, because multi cores will be a MUST in future years.


Yeh, basically, intel core2quad beats athlon x2's silly, and thats coming from a guy with a 4200+! Oh btw im upgrading to a Q6600 lol.


Also, you dont need a MOBO with DDR3. Yes it WILL be better than DDR2 in future but this isnt like going from ddr to ddr2. DDR2 will still be enough for ALL future systems. And ATM they clock just as high as the 10x more expensive DDR3 chips. And I will personally tell you now, going from 2gb memory to 4gb memory on vista is like swapping a pushbike for a ferrari. It gives it so much more speed and power.

For a 4year plus system I reccomend 8800gts 640mb/hd 2900xt/8800gtx, just with that little bit of extra memory. It's handy to have.

Let me first suggest to not listen to your friend when it comes to computers, while it seems like he can throw around fancy terms and has a basic understanding of computers, he seems to be lacking in the more gritty details.

As has been stated, your Q6600 is a 64bit proc so that is not a concern. this whole brou-ha-ha in regards to the 4GB limit is dependant on a few factors. If you continue using a 32-bit OS (XP or Vista) then you will have problems addressing 4GB of memory, i.e. they won't do it, that's the problem with a 32-bit OS. If you upgrade to a 64-bit OS then you can address as much memory as your mobo will handle (which, depending on the DIMM's could be as much as 8GB (4 x 2GB) or more if they come out with larger RAM i.e. 4GB sticks etc.)

As far as which is better, I can honestly say its Intel hands down ... and I have been accused of being an AMD fanboy in my day but that is the cold hard facts. If you happen to find an AMD chip that competes with Intel in raw performance then it will be beat when you do modest overclocks on the Intel chip...and probably price wise too because you have to go pretty high in the AMD portfolio to find one that compares with a mid-range Intel chip...but that is easily seen on the CPU Charts here on toms.

coming from a s939 owner, get a Q6600 most absolutly.

right now, get nothing, price drops in july 22nd dropping Q6600 prices to 266$ US... after july 22nd, get a good board, good ram and an aftermarket cooler... overclock the Q6600 but don't just get a higher clock speed... go for a reasonable frequency but increase the FSB and lower the multi... if it gets to 400fsb, lower the multi to keep the highest fsb possible... it increases memory read/write speeds... if you can't or if the frequency is unstable, then only, lower the fsb and try to get better latency...

a Q6600 @ 333x8 will be faster than a Q6700 @ 266x10 by a few %
because of the bandwith... if you get up to a stable 400mhz fsb,
400x8 would give you a great 3.2ghz... it's a common overclock...

3.2ghz for a Q6600 isnt a common overclock... atleast not on air.


I dont think this guy has water cooling nor knows enough to overclock. Even if it is easy when you get the hang of it, its a lot of money to put at risk.


Q6600 is at 2.4ghz at each core anyway, no need to overclock that for quite some time. An aftermarket cooler is highly reccomended though


Oh btw to actually answer your question. Q6600 and some desent RAM, preferably pc2-6400, will keep your comptuer running good enough for the next 4years. The only thing you may need to update before then would be graphics, which I believe need to be updated every year to keep acceptable performance.

Here we go again

C2D this C2D that... yawn...

Go with X2 You wont regret it!

Didn't you mean to say.

Core2 quad this core2 quad that....

Nope not impressed, I can say Phenom X4 quad core pretty well though..

Yeah .... C2D Quad .... vs .... AMD X2 hmmmm tough choice!!!


.......NOT [/Borat]

You C2D people are amazing I wish I could sit on my high horse like that and look down and the masses thinking im the best there ever was. I would have liked to seen you guys under your rocks hiding scurrying around like mice when AMD was on top not long ago.

do not get an x2, it is outdated. spend the extra money on a fx74. if you want to go budget and spend loads of money on aftermarket cooling go with the x2, even overclocked -- the facts are there that even the fx74 cannot keep up with the quad cores when talking about multithreaded applications. now if you are just going to build your computer to play games and x2 would probably suffice because there are not any games out yet that uses 4 cores, just get a 8800gts or gtx and with the x2 you can probably play most games at full rez, but the x2 is not future proof. given that most games dont even use 2 cores. i understand amd die hards will be loyal to amd but you cannot deny the benchmarks. multithreading is best performed on intel core 2s or core 2 quads. if you do alot of graphic or video editing get a quad core.

Sorry I was only pointing out that the choice was between c2q and x2 not c2d and x2.
Personally when AMD was on top I wasn't under a rock but I was enjoying my Opty175. Still have it, it was a great processor.

hmm...when AMD was on top, that's what I bought. Now that Intel is, that's what I have. Looks like you wasted your money, to me. An X2 6000+ is bested by the C2D E6420 in almost every benchmark. The E6420 can be had for $20-$40 less than the 6000+. And as far Phenom X4 is concerned...It won't be around until after Penryn is released. Based on current but rare benchmarks from AMD and Barcelona, Penryn will prove to be faster, albeit at higher clock speeds, too. As far as an upgrade path is concerned, stick with Intel for the next year or two. AMD has some catching up to do.

To the OP, I would wait a couple weeks when the Q6600 drops to under 3 bills. But the system you mentioned seems decent enough, as long as the motherboard will be compatible with Penryn and a bios upgrade.

And Soldier37, I'll be happy with my QX6700 system, custom watercooled and overclocked to 3.7GHZ. Even when Phenom X4 hits the streets, my overclocked system will be faster.

DELETED. Your bias is obvious and gives your shill nature away without effort.

If you really want to effectively shill, you ought to learn how to be subtle so you won't be ridiculed.

take a look at the tomshardware cpu charts, as well as other benchmarks - teh 5600+ beats the e6400 and e6420.

for its price, at teh moment the 5600+ is quite attractive.

Soldier I have seen many of your posts. Many of them you have valid arguments with the minimal performance difference on many levels and prices, but you must know that the better choice here...had you read the OP first post is the Core 2 Quad. The only dual core that matches the 2.4ghz of a C2D and in this case C2Q (which is a system he has found and likes the idea of getting) is your processor the 6000+. His friend has miss informed him. We are trying to inform him. I agree with you...if he went with the X2 he would not be disappointed, but he does not upgrade often and is willing to get the system with a C2Q...so why not? To make sure AMD doesn't go under? They aren't going to and you know it as well as everyone else here. The Core 2 Quad is a better processor than any AMD processor that there is at this current time. Even at stock speeds it is the better choice. You know this and I respect you decision for sticking with AMD and the 6000+ is a great processor my roommate also has one, but do not mislead the OP. He came here for help and that is what he was getting. He didnt know something and now he does after the first few posts. Lets not be a troll and suck it up when our fave company is down. Everyone has a fave company! I personally prefer Intel over AMD and always will, but that didnt stop me from having a 3700+ sandy and a 3800+ x2 while also recommending AMD processor to friends for 3 years because they were better. If phenom X4 is in fact much better than Penryn then that will be my quad core system. But dont make these forums worse then they already are when you know the truth about which processor is better. Regardless of by how much...better is better! Im not asking you to buy a C2D or C2Q, but please dont mislead people. Your opinions are valid as are everyone else, but lets try to stick to the most logical answer to the OP question and that is to get the C2Q...it is apparent that he is able to afford it, so we aren't talking price to performance ratio here!!!

To the OP: The quad is the better choice as stated above. It will last you longer and is also 64 bit just like the Athlon 64! Also 4gb of ram will be a good spot to be at when 64 bit computing starts to come around, so I wouldnt worry about that. I would recommend as you said to upgrade the video card at some point, because it is pretty weak, but if it fits your needs then more power to you! Hope this helps.

Best,

3Ball

1) Q6600 is more expensive than all Athlon X2 CPUs until July 22nd.
Right now AMD doesn't offer a competitive product to the Q6600 at $516 / quadcore cpu.
If you want to buy now the 5200+ and 5600+ are good choices for AMD - though obviously not quad core.

2) The Q6600 is 64-bit.

3) No, most users will not have 4GB of RAM for the next year and a half or so. Vista likes 2GB and above, but I doubt it'll really benefit that much from anything after 2GB.