Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 or Athalon 64 x2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 6, 2007 5:36:50 PM

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?

More about : q6600 athalon

July 6, 2007 6:09:27 PM

hey calleden,

here are some links:

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_quad_q6600_p...

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.
July 6, 2007 6:11:18 PM

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.
Related resources
July 6, 2007 6:31:33 PM

Quote:
But my friend is trying to talk me out of it, claiming I'll hate myself when 64 bit becomes necessary in the next ... 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)


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.
July 6, 2007 6:33:37 PM

coming from a s939 owner, get a Q6600 most absolutly.
July 6, 2007 6:57:44 PM

Quote:
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...
July 6, 2007 7:56:03 PM

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 :D 


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.
July 6, 2007 8:22:17 PM

Quote:
Here we go again :roll:

C2D this C2D that... yawn...

Go with X2 You wont regret it!


Didn't you mean to say.

Core2 quad this core2 quad that....
July 6, 2007 8:28:00 PM

Quote:
Here we go again :roll:

C2D this C2D that... yawn...

Go with X2 You wont regret it!


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


.......NOT [/Borat]
July 6, 2007 8:33:21 PM

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.
July 6, 2007 8:39:27 PM

Quote:
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.


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.
July 6, 2007 9:17:20 PM

Quote:
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.


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.
July 6, 2007 9:21:33 PM

Quote:
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.


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.
July 6, 2007 9:24:24 PM

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.
July 6, 2007 9:30:09 PM

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
July 6, 2007 9:30:27 PM

Quote:
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?


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.
July 6, 2007 9:36:15 PM

I like AMD, always have. Had one of the first athlons (550mhz) and even the crappy lesser ones (something like 350mhz). The most common AMD i have is 2 opty 250s. Good CPUs. Getting dated, but does the job still.

Anyways, as you can see, I like AMD, but logically, why go AMD now? Just get a C2Q for 266, then upgrade later if you get a P35 or X38 board. The X2s are old and from what I've seen aren not on par and are not competitively priced. Thier overclocking abilities are not on par either. e6300 @2.8ghz or greater with a 60 dollar after market cooler is an EXCELLENT deal.

Quad core is future ready anyways. If you learn to OC, you'll be set with a Q6600 for a while. As well, the AMD FX74 is a joke. I was really hoping AMD was going to come out with something incredible and probably would have bought it, but when it finally came out, I was let down.

That FX-7* series takes too much power, requires an incredibly expensive board, a specific case for cooling (if you want to go thermaltake), a huge PSU and what amounts to a lot of cash for something not even as fast as a Q6600. Its not energy efficient either. Personally, I am sick and tired for DUAL CPU mobos. They are a pain to cool down.

Get a quad, you won't be disappoint. If Penryn was not coming out in the next 6 months (I have to wait by then to have enough cash to upgrade anyways), I would get a Q6600 @ 266 and OC the hell out of it. AMD doesn't have anything right now that can touch it.
July 6, 2007 9:47:52 PM

Quote:
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.



I don't see the E6420 on Tom's CPU charts. I said almost, anyway. If you check out Anandtech, you'll see that as far as general usage, the E6420 does beat the 6000+. When rendering and in most games the 6000+ barely edges out the 6420. Now, when the refresh C2D's are released, i.e. fsb 1333 and E6X50 series cpu's, the E6750 will be priced at $183 in 1000 unit quantities. Any X2 AMD has can't compare to the E6750. Hell, the E6850 will be priced at $266, same as the Q6600. Of course AMD will cut prices, too. But at this point they'll have a larger market share if they start giving them away.
July 6, 2007 10:13:06 PM

q6600 FTW!

Get XP pro32(OEM) and vista ultimate 64 (OEM) and dual boot. That’s what I did, it is beautiful.

This way you are set now (win xp 32) and your set with vista 64 for when it actually becomes the OS of choice.
July 6, 2007 10:19:39 PM

Quote:
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 :D .

I’ve been wondering how high you can push a Q6600 on air and recently came across two reviews at XBitlabs that makes the situation seem not as bad as I’d feared. Using a fairly cheap Cooler Master Hyper TX they managed 3.2GHz @ 1.45V. 2.9GHz @ 1.275V was very easy.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/spire-...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/scythe...

When the new stepping for Q6600 is released which lowers the TDP to 95W it looks as if 3.2GHz might be relatively easy with a mid range cooler and good case cooling:
http://intel.pcnalert.com/content/eolpcn/PCN107463-00.p...

I still see the relevance of over-clocking the Q6600 as most programmes don’t scale past 2 cores so you’ll be losing out if you’re stuck at 2.4GHz. Having only two cores under load won’t stress the temps nearly so much either even at 3.2GHz.

As for risking the CPU it’s not something that concerns me much with an Intel CPU, especially if I have a retail chip with a 3 year warranty. I run RMClock which will alert me if the CPU is thermally throttling which is good to know for a number of reasons. I have a feeling that the new stepping will hit 3.2GHz below 1.45V which decreases the risks.

Hi Hatman, I’m out of beers, next time. :) 
July 6, 2007 10:29:36 PM

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


Woa funny guy, recomending a product that isnt even out yet!



That stuff about 3.2ghz on air is interesting. I didn't think it would be all too possible but it seems it is. Thanks for links.
July 6, 2007 10:38:18 PM

As it stands now Intel and AMD are catering to two different market segments. AMD is offering cheap, cheap, cheap. The processors are cheap and the mainboards are cheaper (compared to equivalent intel boards) while the performance is decent.
Intel is offering top performance for a little premium (unless you overclock their cheap offerings). The mainboards tend to be a little more expensive but the intel processor prices are more than fair and once someone wants more processing power than a x2 6000 offers intel still offers plenty of choices.

And before someone tells me that AMD needs more expensive RAM (i.e. DDR800) please check the memory prices.
July 6, 2007 10:41:49 PM

lol Hat man I like the preferences at the bottom of your sig. Hense I feel the same way, unless of course the performance on the other side is just to much to pass up on. lol

Best,

3Ball
July 6, 2007 10:46:56 PM

Quote:
lol Hat man I like the preferences at the bottom of your sig. Hense I feel the same way, unless of course the performance on the other side is just to much to pass up on. lol

Best,

3Ball


Luckily atm it isn't! Just gotta hope this newish dual GPU card from ATI gets somewhere...
July 6, 2007 10:55:16 PM

I have a Brisbane in the PC I’m writing this on as I don’t need more power than that in this box. If I wanted X2 6000+ performance I would definitely go with Intel as it’s simple to cool a Core 2 Duo due its low power consumption and you save money on your electric bill.
The link below shows an E4500 matching an FX-62 in performance terms but consuming half the power of the AMD system; 97W versus 194W at full load. Obviously the choice of motherboard also has an affect but nowhere near as much as the choice of CPU:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/385/core-se-decline-...
July 6, 2007 10:56:24 PM

lol so true! I will be making my decision about what my next graphics card is around X-Mas time...common ATI!!!!!! lol

Best,

3Ball
July 6, 2007 11:35:42 PM

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



Cool, I'll give you 1 million dollars for if you get me one by tomorrow...

Awwww shame all that money.
July 6, 2007 11:52:03 PM

Quote:
I have a Brisbane in the PC I’m writing this on as I don’t need more power than that in this box. If I wanted X2 6000+ performance I would definitely go with Intel as it’s simple to cool a Core 2 Duo due its low power consumption and you save money on your electric bill.
The link below shows an E4500 matching an FX-62 in performance terms but consuming half the power of the AMD system; 97W versus 194W at full load. Obviously the choice of motherboard also has an affect but nowhere near as much as the choice of CPU:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/385/core-se-decline-...


That´s why i said what i said. Right now i could buy a C2D e4500 for 138€, but a x2 6000 is performing around 1% faster and costs me only 137€. Since AMD motherboards tend to be cheaper, almost everything below the 138€ segment is AMD territory - unless the chip gets overclocked. For gamers on a budget that don´t want to overclock or Office PCs AMD is a very good choice.

The Power saving-cost drivel is just propaganda. The money you save by buying a power efficient CPU is almost neglectible. Even though if the price difference is only 1% it actually might be interesting to do the math... 8O
Power efficiency might come into play if you intend to buy a dozen computers that will run for the next five years or so. Then i´d consider it. But for people like us, enthusiasts, that tend to switch their CPUs like other people their socks, it doesn´t really matter.
July 7, 2007 12:11:36 AM

Quote:
The Power saving-cost drivel is just propaganda. The money you save by buying a power efficient CPU is almost neglectible. Even though if the price difference is only 1% it actually might be interesting to do the math... 8O .

For light home use I agree that the cost difference isn’t so significant. But for people that are running at high CPU load for long periods (folding, rendering etc) a 100% difference in system power consumption isn’t trivial.
I personally like quiet PCs so an E4500 is much more interesting to me versus an FX-62 as I can push it up to 3GHz + and still cool it quietly without much effort.
July 7, 2007 12:16:07 AM

Quote:
Here we go again :roll:

C2D this C2D that... yawn...

Go with X2 You wont regret it!


Yeah, if you want to overpay for a chip that's less than half as fast as the Q6600. :roll:
July 7, 2007 12:29:47 AM

Quote:
The Power saving-cost drivel is just propaganda. The money you save by buying a power efficient CPU is almost neglectible. Even though if the price difference is only 1% it actually might be interesting to do the math... 8O
Power efficiency might come into play if you intend to buy a dozen computers that will run for the next five years or so. Then i´d consider it. But for people like us, enthusiasts, that tend to switch their CPUs like other people their socks, it doesn´t really matter.


I agree the power savings over the course of a year or two don't amount to much, $10 - $20 maybe?

But efficiency *does* come into play in many other ways.

HTPCs speaks for themselves.

People building a low noise/silent PC would do well to choose the lower wattage platform, as it means less fans and also variable RPM PSUs won't spin up as much.

Overclockers with juiced up CPUs and GPUs pull quite a lot of power, and that heat has to go somewhere - inside the case that is! An extra 100W means a hotter case temp, it's actually quite significant. 8O
July 7, 2007 2:00:30 AM

Thanks for all the help guys! Whoever mentioned I'm a newbie to computer configuring is correct, I'm not really interested in overclocking or building myself - just middle of the road gaming. For those who didn't catch it before, I'm buying my computer from a retailer.

I think I'll have to replace the graphic card soon, I'll be able to do that within a couple of months. I'll probably have to replace the PSU...I have a feeling since this is a retail model and they usually give lower wattage. Two more questions.

1) As far as the 4 GB limit is concerned, the MoBo will not take more than 4 GB of RAM. So what I was really asking, is it stupid to buy a MoBo that won't support more than that amount of RAM?

2) Also, say I switch to a 64 bit OS. If I use 4 GB of RAM (which would be my MoBo's limit), will I still have to count my video card's dedicated memory to that 4 GB total? Because if that's not the case, I'd have a bit more flexibility.

Thanks again!
July 7, 2007 2:12:40 AM

Quote:
Thanks for all the help guys! Whoever mentioned I'm a newbie to computer configuring is correct, I'm not really interested in overclocking or building myself - just middle of the road gaming. For those who didn't catch it before, I'm buying my computer from a retailer.

I think I'll have to replace the graphic card soon, I'll be able to do that within a couple of months. I'll probably have to replace the PSU...I have a feeling since this is a retail model and they usually give lower wattage. Two more questions.

1) As far as the 4 GB limit is concerned, the MoBo will not take more than 4 GB of RAM. So what I was really asking, is it stupid to buy a MoBo that won't support more than that amount of RAM?

2) Also, say I switch to a 64 bit OS. If I use 4 GB of RAM (which would be my MoBo's limit), will I still have to count my video card's dedicated memory to that 4 GB total? Because if that's not the case, I'd have a bit more flexibility.

Thanks again!


1) Are you sure it will not support anymore than 4 GB? That is just the limitation of the OS most likely. If the motherboard is based off of one of Intel's P35 or G35 chipset they can handle up to 8GB under a 64bit OS.

2) Video memory does not come into play with system memory unless you are using integrated graphics. It still does not limit you on the total amount of system memory. The integrated graphics adapter only takes some of the system memory to use as a video buffer.
July 7, 2007 2:54:59 AM

Quote:


2) Video memory does not come into play with system memory unless you are using integrated graphics. It still does not limit you on the total amount of system memory. The integrated graphics adapter only takes some of the system memory to use as a video buffer.


Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.
July 7, 2007 3:30:30 AM

Quote:


2) Video memory does not come into play with system memory unless you are using integrated graphics. It still does not limit you on the total amount of system memory. The integrated graphics adapter only takes some of the system memory to use as a video buffer.


Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.That doesn't make any sense; CPUs can't address video memory so Microsoft would have had to purposefully create the limit.
July 7, 2007 3:49:24 AM

Well, I figure to toss my 2c in here...

If you want to do something right ONCE, then go Q6600, P35 Board, 2x2Gb DDR2 667, Zalman CPU cooler w/ Artic Silver 5. For the Graphx board, shoot, and aim at 8800GTS 640Mb.

The FREE upgrade is to set the P35 board to a 1333 FSB from stock 1066. Chances are you won't have to touch anything else. Stock fan sux, and the aftermarket fan rules, Tuniq tower, Zalman, yotta,yotta,yotta... anything besides stock. Artic Silver 5 to mate CPU to cooler.

Don't cheat yourself on the case, take a look at the NZXT ZERO case here for an idea... move LOTSA air. Consider a 700-800W power supply in case you decide on TWO Graphx cards.

Finally, don't settle for less than a 1680x1050 LCD monitor. If you can afford the extra $150 try 1600x1200. No holes barred would be your basic 1920x1200 24" model.

f61
July 7, 2007 5:01:39 AM

Gateway lists this model with a limit of 4 GB. It lists other models with larger values. I assume that means they're reffering to the MoBo.

Quote:
Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.


So does that mean if I went with a 64 bit OS, I would be able to break the 4 GB limit? My MoBo won't expand beyond 4 GB, but could I utilize 4 GB of RAM plus my video card memory with a 64 bit OS?
July 7, 2007 6:55:57 AM

Quote:
Gateway lists this model with a limit of 4 GB. It lists other models with larger values. I assume that means they're reffering to the MoBo.

Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.


So does that mean if I went with a 64 bit OS, I would be able to break the 4 GB limit? My MoBo won't expand beyond 4 GB, but could I utilize 4 GB of RAM plus my video card memory with a 64 bit OS?

Yes.


Also its just my opinion but the AMD ones are OUT OF DATE hell tehre are brand new ones out around december time. If you want a comptuer thts going to last you 2 or 3 years sorry but I think you'll need to go with the core2duo.

Yes its a bi more expensive but tis still worth paying that money.
July 7, 2007 12:23:17 PM

Quote:


2) Video memory does not come into play with system memory unless you are using integrated graphics. It still does not limit you on the total amount of system memory. The integrated graphics adapter only takes some of the system memory to use as a video buffer.


Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.That doesn't make any sense; CPUs can't address video memory so Microsoft would have had to purposefully create the limit.

Finding a good link to support what I know was more difficult than I expected. Here is a good explanation from an Hp mini white paper.

Quote:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer’s PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB. The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today’s high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory)addresses are allocated

Link.
July 7, 2007 5:47:22 PM

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


Too bad you cant buy one or find any benchmarks for it.
July 7, 2007 5:53:59 PM

Quote:
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


Well said 3Ball
July 7, 2007 6:46:57 PM

Quote:


2) Video memory does not come into play with system memory unless you are using integrated graphics. It still does not limit you on the total amount of system memory. The integrated graphics adapter only takes some of the system memory to use as a video buffer.


Actually when dealing 32 bit windows, xp or vista the gpu's memory is included in the total addressable memory.That doesn't make any sense; CPUs can't address video memory so Microsoft would have had to purposefully create the limit.

Finding a good link to support what I know was more difficult than I expected. Here is a good explanation from an Hp mini white paper.

Quote:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional, designed as a 32-bit OS, supports an address range of up to 4 GB for virtual memory addresses and up to 4 GB for physical memory addresses. Because the physical memory addresses are sub-divided to manage both the computer’s PCI memory address range (also known as MMIO) and RAM, the amount of available RAM is always less than 4 GB. The PCI memory addresses starting down from 4 GB are used for things like the BIOS, IO cards, networking, PCI hubs, bus bridges, PCI-Express, and video/graphics cards. The BIOS takes up about 512 KB starting from the very top address. Then each of the other items mentioned are allocated address ranges below the BIOS range. The largest block of addresses is allocated for today’s high performance graphics cards which need addresses for at least the amount of memory on the graphics card. The net result is that a high performance x86-based computer may allocate 512 MB to more than 1 GB for the PCI memory address range before any RAM (physical user memory)addresses are allocated

Link.As credible as some obscure dated HP document sounds, I'll wait until other sources are found. While you may be right, you'll have to find a better source to convince me. :wink:
July 7, 2007 7:02:31 PM

Insofar as I know, there's no circumstance in which your video card's memory gets factored into Windows or any other OS's addressable memory... unless you're using an integrated graphics chip like the intel x3000 or something. Since you're obviously going to be using a dedicated video card, it shouldn't factor in at all.

So, yeah, you can get any processor now (AMD or Intel) and they'll both support an x86 64bit OS, and you should (given the slots) be able to install 4 or more GB of memory and have it all available for use.

Good luck!

Though yeah, I'd say the Quad. Over 2 cores, any day of the week.
July 7, 2007 7:06:51 PM

Nope, I served up now it's your turn to return contradictory evidence.

Actually while googling for something that would outline it completely you can find a lot of reference to addressable memory limitations under 32 bit windows. That was the only "complete" explanation from a reputable source that I could find without burning too much time.

Hmm as I wrote this it occurred to me to search again using memory remapping as a search term. Here is another link from some company called Microsoft.
July 7, 2007 11:08:03 PM

mmm.. GPU memory contributing to the "cap" I never considered that at all.


I guess it should. But most just isnt enough to cause a problem since most cards are only 256mb/512mb and the most ram most guys ever use is 2gb.
July 9, 2007 4:04:13 PM

Never fails, the amd vs. intel threads always lead to flames. But as to answer your question go for the q6600.
July 9, 2007 4:50:37 PM

The 4GB issue is a reality in 32 bit systems. The os has to account for all memory being used anywhere, and has to address it as such. I am not sure about XP, but I have read on a microsoft page that vista will stop at 3.12 GB to ensure no issues with the rest of the system. 64 bit os completely gets rid of this and will last us many many years from now. I remember some guy did the math in its way into terabyte if not farther. So we got a while on that one. But a 32 bit os can only use 4GB total in the entire system, and even if your card is only a 256 card, it won't show up as 3.75gb due to limitations that Microsoft HAS put into the software to ensure compatability and non fighting over memory addressing.

To OP:
Any system you buy today is a 64 bit if it is even remotely new technology. Your board may only support 4GB, but you can easily replace that later if you get a system built with a standard ATX case. I would stay away from bestbuy and the like and go with someone like iBuypower if you are going to purchase a system pre-built. There may very well be better companies/cheaper but that is just off the top of my head. Then you can customize it however you like and maybe even get a different board that will support more.

The question you should ask yourself is when do you want to upgrade again? if it will be fairly soon (1-2 years or less) then maybe the 6000 with its lower price will be a better deal now. If it will be longer, definitely go with the Q6600, but it may very well benefit you to wait a couple weeks for the price drops. I don't know how quickly retailers/e-tailers show the price difference, so I don't know how much you could benefit. But in the long term it definitely appears the quad will be your better buy, especially if Intel continues to use the LGA775 socket, and if your board is a decent enough board that they can update to latest fsb's by bios updates.
July 9, 2007 5:21:25 PM

arkadom2005 said:
spend the extra money on a fx74.

Spoken like a true... moron.
July 9, 2007 6:57:34 PM

To use 4gb of RAM you have to get a 64-bit OS. usually websites will warn you that with 4gb ram the 32-bit OS's will not read it properly. And then recommend Vista-64 bit, unless you have chosen that OS already.

As for the RAM limit, its hard to tell if its the MoBo's limit or just the limit of what the offer in that computer model. Without the MoBo's model # there is really no way (that I know of) to say for sure what the MoBo's limit is, but history shows us that retailer's (Dell, gateway, HP, Compaq, etc..)don't tend to build systems that are very upgrade friendly, as they design systems to hit price points and not for future proof. If they sold computers that were easy to upgrade they might lose some return business when the computer isn't performing as you want with the latest and greatest programs

Also, as mentioned before, unless its an integrated video card the GPU memory has no bearing on the system ram, just the systems video performance.

Go with the C2Q 6600 system, AMD has some catching up to do (heres hoping they do). For now the crown is with Intel, but its only a matter of time before they give it back to AMD, its the processor circle of life.

Sounds like your friend needs to do some reading as they don't really seem to know what they are talking about, a processor doesn't have to have "64" in the name to be 64-bit. Even AMD will be dropping the monicar on the new processors.

Good Luck!
July 9, 2007 9:58:50 PM



Given that CERT has just issued a critical waring against an Intel errata on the C2 product line related to the potential adjust the memory page access bit (AI90 on the recently published C2 errata) I would recommend waiting to see what Intel's response is before purchasing.

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB07-190.html

I would also point out that in 64Bit mode (which you appear to plan on using) the difference in performance is not quite as great as some people obviously think it is (although it is better).

I would look at your requirements, look at your budget and then make a choice. You may be better off getting a higher performing graphics card and disc sub-system, then again, if money is no object get the best of everything.
!