Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

question for ppl who have a Q6600 or in the know

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 22, 2007 4:42:08 AM

Hi all,
I'm having difficulty deciding if the q6600's 300 bucks price tag is worth it to me. Yes it's a low price, but C2D's are are a hundred bukcs less!

I keep hearing that people won't reap the benefits of quad core unless they are running multi-threaded apps. Well I don't do video encoding or anytning multi-threaded (As of now). But I do a Lot of multi-tasking. At any given time I might have 5 or 6 single-threaded apps running plus background processes like anti-virus etc. Memory is certainly a bottleneck here but...

I want to know if Windows OS delegates multiple single-threaded apps/processes between the cores. I wouldn't be very happy if I buy a q6600, fire up 6 applications and see only one core taking on the whole load.

I'll be installing Vista home premium 32 bit. If anyone with this OS and a Q6600 can confirm that the multi-cores are utilized when multiple single-threaded apps are running, then I'd appreciate your input. Or if you just happen to know the answer - ( regardless of your set up ).

Thanks a bunch :hello: 

More about : question ppl q6600

a b à CPUs
July 22, 2007 4:53:21 AM

solarwind said:
Hi all,
I'm having difficulty deciding if the q6600's 300 bucks price tag is worth it to me. Yes it's a low price, but C2D's are are a hundred bukcs less!

I keep hearing that people won't reap the benefits of quad core unless they are running multi-threaded apps. Well I don't do video encoding or anytning multi-threaded (As of now). But I do a Lot of multi-tasking. At any given time I might have 5 or 6 single-threaded apps running plus background processes like anti-virus etc. Memory is certainly a bottleneck here but...

I want to know if Windows OS delegates multiple single-threaded apps/processes between the cores. I wouldn't be very happy if I buy a q6600, fire up 6 applications and see only one core taking on the whole load.

I'll be installing Vista home premium 32 bit. If anyone with this OS and a Q6600 can confirm that the multi-cores are utilized when multiple single-threaded apps are running, then I'd appreciate your input. Or if you just happen to know the answer - ( regardless of your set up ).

Thanks a bunch :hello: 

I have this system running for 4 months or so. The system was an E6600 C2D before that and from the time C2D was first released. The Q6600 uses all four cores regularily in both OS. Use the CPU charts to compare, the Q6600 is a far superior processor than a non extreme C2D.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=871&model2=882&chart=435

Q6600
ASUS P5B-Deluxe
G. Skill PC6400 4GB 4-4-4-12
EVGA 7900GTO 512 MB
WD 150 SATA RAPTOR Vista HP 32
WD 74 SATA RAPTOR Windows XP PRO
WD 250 SATA storage
ASUS DVD-ROM
ASUS DVD-RW Lightscribe
Thermaltake 700 watt quad 12v rail PSU
Thermaltake Mozart tower
Thermaltake media Lab Led Remote control
Zalman 9500 Led HSF
Audigy 2 Soundblaster
Boston Acoustics
Pinnacle Studio 9 PCI
Slingbox Pro Digital Sattelite
BenQ 22” LCD

Vista Experience rating is 5.9.





July 22, 2007 7:11:35 AM

double the core's for $80 is a no branier!

its not that simple - hard drives are now not able to keep up unless you raid or dual drive
Related resources
July 22, 2007 7:29:43 AM

I suppose you guys are right. I just wanted to make sure I'm not getting a quad simply for my ego and that I would actually notice a benefit over dual core.
In fact, if I go quad core, I will have skipped over the dual core cpu's completely because right now I still have a 6 year old Pentium 4 2.4GH, with 512MB ram - Man is this thing slow!!! It drives me crazy switching between apps... hourglass nightmare...lol.

System I'm building:
Abit IP35-Pro
Q6600 or E6750 ( just need this component - have the rest )
OCZ GamerXtream 600W
nVidia 8800gts 320mb
Crucial Ballistix PC6400 2GB cas 4
SATA optical and HDD
July 22, 2007 10:54:21 AM

solarwind said:
I suppose you guys are right. I just wanted to make sure I'm not getting a quad simply for my ego and that I would actually notice a benefit over dual core.
In fact, if I go quad core, I will have skipped over the dual core cpu's completely because right now I still have a 6 year old Pentium 4 2.4GH, with 512MB ram - Man is this thing slow!!! It drives me crazy switching between apps... hourglass nightmare...lol.

System I'm building:
Abit IP35-Pro
Q6600 or E6750 ( just need this component - have the rest )
OCZ GamerXtream 600W
nVidia 8800gts 320mb
Crucial Ballistix PC6400 2GB cas 4
SATA optical and HDD



Great build, kinda reminds me of what I am going to get :love: 
Stick with the quad, it may not look that fancy now but it should wipe the floor with any E6xxx in the (hopefully near) future :bounce: 
July 22, 2007 1:32:43 PM

i would suggest you really push to get a GTX its what $100 more.. that will make a big difference in games

and yes Q6600 is the best choice..
July 22, 2007 2:30:43 PM

I believe the GTX is more like 200 or 300$ more than a 320mb GTS...

For the CPU, I would go with a Quad Core if I had the money. There will be more and more apps that take advantage of all four cores as time goes on. I'm hoping that games really start using all four cores to hopefully take some load off of the GPU and make games run better (don't actually know if a CPU can actually take load off GPU).

-Typo Edited.
July 22, 2007 5:39:47 PM

Hey, thanks for the encouragement! Yeah the GTX is about 300$ more than VGA that I got. I was originally going to get a 6600gts for 170$ - but decided to spend the extra Ben on the 8800gts - the best I could afford.

It's unlikely the CPU would take load off the GPU since the GPU utilizes mostly hardward accelerated graphics - the CPU would be software rendering (much slower). However - a game's Logic, AI and Physics could benefit greatly from multi-core (provided the game is multi-threaded). ;) 

update: Just bought the Q6600!!! :sol: 
July 23, 2007 1:12:05 AM

dragonsprayer said:
double the core's for $80 is a no branier!

its not that simple - hard drives are now not able to keep up unless you raid or dual drive



Agreed on the first part, disagree on the second...RAID is useless on a desktop machine
July 23, 2007 2:17:54 AM

jt001 said:
Agreed on the first part, disagree on the second...RAID is useless on a desktop machine



Why do you think RAID is worthless on a Desktop. RAID can be very useful on a desktop for the exact same reasons as any other application for it...
July 23, 2007 2:31:48 AM

jt001 said:
Agreed on the first part, disagree on the second...RAID is useless on a desktop machine


:pfff:  Apparently you have never used a properly set-up desktop raid.
July 23, 2007 2:42:25 AM

What are you trying to do with the RAID?

In most cases, us basic PC users are not going to benefit from RAID. Oh sure, you can mirror a drive, BUT that actually slows down performance.

If you want backup protection (and everybody should want backup) then buy an external drive and perform a backup on a frequent basis. Then really provide serious backup by storing the external HD in a place other than the PC so that in the event of fire etc the external HD is not damaged. I actually carry my external HD home with me every day.
July 23, 2007 12:21:16 PM

Solarwind...

Sounds like I'm in the same boat as you. I've got a P4 2.4 also and an ASUS AGP 4X mobo....toast. I've done a ton of research for the past 6+ months and I think the timing is pretty good to build a system. Those Intel price cuts are sweet. I know what the performance freaks are saying that gaming is slower on Vista and the Dual cores are faster than the Q6600 now...yada yada yada. The point many are missing is that word ...NOW. They may be better today, but for someone that doesn't build a system often (I used to every 2 yrs, but not any longer) they need to pack as much performance into the system NOW, so it isn't obsolete tomorrow. Yeah...I could put a $100 cheaper C2D processor in it NOW...but I'd pay later. I tend to play the latest games and a good GPU is essential (The CPU probably not so much). But for a few bucks, if your building a system from scratch, your gaining a lot of extra horsepower for the future.

From what I've read, there are applications now that use the Quad quite well and there will be many games soon that will require a Quad to run well. If you have a bleeding edge GPU, you might not, but there was a review (don't remember where, maybe Anantech) that took some beta versions of upcoming multithread games and put a Quad and a C2D through their paces. The result was...the Quad is going to own the dual cores in the near future.

Sounds like you'll have a nice system there. I'm also building a similar system.

My specs so far:

System I'm building:
Abit IP35-Pro ($185) - haven't purchased yet
Q6600 ($300 ?) - Haven't purchased yet
Tuniq Tower 120 ($60)
Antec 900 case ($100)
Antec Neo HE 550 ($60)
BFG 8800gts OC2 640mb ($316)
CORSAIR XMS2 2GB DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 ($130)
2 - 320Gb WD SATA HD ($80 each)
Asus SATA DVD Burner ($40)


Good Luck with the build.

Just noticed that Newegg has evidently sold out of the Q6600. Hopefully, the new stepped version will be in stock soon !!!

July 23, 2007 1:48:09 PM

So a Zalman 9500 is enough to cool tghe Q6600 ? I read elsewrer that a tuniq 120 keps it at 68c at load !
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2007 1:59:04 PM

middlemarkal said:
So a Zalman 9500 is enough to cool tghe Q6600 ? I read elsewrer that a tuniq 120 keps it at 68c at load !


The Zalman 9500 is more than enough. The case has eleven 120mm fans. Watercooling would be no problem to install in the case. Idles is around 25c at 75f room temperature. Case airflow makes a lot of difference and this case has great airflow. The q6600 is a cool running processor out of the box. A Zalman 9500 is a great upgrade from the stock fan.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133025
July 23, 2007 2:30:38 PM

Holy Crap...now that's a case! I think its on steriods though.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2007 3:06:54 PM

The case offers a great cooling solution, but it so heavy. Seperate chamber for the PSU. Seperate chamber to house a second micro MB. So it houses two computers. Has all the space and cutouts for an in house water cooling system. Hurcules is needed to lift it though.
July 23, 2007 3:25:03 PM

Back onto the raid question - raid 0 gives a fantastic speed increase across the board. Loading levels in games, accessing data, etc. raid 0 is perfect for the desktop. There is that whole data loss issue... but are you really going to be that torn up when you lose your pr0n collection? Just back up your stuff on something and the cons of running a raid 0 are gone. -G
July 23, 2007 3:42:42 PM

Q6600 or E6750??? I'm wondering about this.

But, no one has addressed the comparison fully yet. If you go to the benchmarks site, the Q6600 leads the E6750 on most tests but just barely. Is it worth the extra $80 to have a *slightly* faster CPU? If you choose the cost/performance comparison (last option at the bottom), you notice they determine the E6750 to be a better price/performance chip and one of the few high-performance Intel processors that is a decent price and yielding top performance. That's why I haven't decided yet.

Is there something I'm missing? I'd be doing video encoding and editing, so is the Q6600 better for that? I thought both processors would be adept at such tasks so is the extra $80 giving significant gains?
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2007 3:48:59 PM

So which processor is most compotent at the benchmarks more closely related to video editing. I do video editing too, but I haven't done any since I have my Q6600. One reason I bought the Q6600 was for this specific purpose. I expect my processor to do VERY well. Worth $80 in my situation.
July 23, 2007 8:42:37 PM

Gh0stDrag0n said:
:pfff:  Apparently you have never used a properly set-up desktop raid.


I have 4 Raptors in RAID 0 on my desktop, as well as 2 drives in RAID 0, and a 3 drive RAID 4, on a card with onboard XOR and 128MB cache, I've ran RAID and high end SCSI systems all my life, and even as someone who loves RAID, I can confidently say it's not going to do much if anything for most users. His best bet would be to get a Raptor if anything, the low access times should help with his multitasking.
July 23, 2007 8:44:25 PM

StevieD said:
What are you trying to do with the RAID?

In most cases, us basic PC users are not going to benefit from RAID. Oh sure, you can mirror a drive, BUT that actually slows down performance.


Not true actually, it's dependent on the card, in some cases the reads can be almost twice as fast as a single drive, if the proper RAID card is used.

I agree with you though that rather than mirroring, an external drive is best
July 23, 2007 9:04:42 PM

Poster above is dead right. Using built-in motherboard raid stuff usually doesnt give too good results.. kinda makes it "work" and thats it. Need a high end MB or a raid card.

I'll be buying 2xm 160gb WD Caviars both with 16mb cache soon. Im putting them into RAID0.


Im pretty sure there wil be a substancial performance increase over a single 320mb hard drive.



Also someone mentioned e6750 vs q6600. Eveyerone keeps syaing that, but if you look at prices, the q6600 is much closer to the e6850 in price. 3ghz vs 2 mroe cores. I look at it from the max overclock value. 2x 3.4ghz vs 4x 3.2ghz. its a no brainer.
July 26, 2007 9:44:48 AM

Hatman said:
Poster above is dead right. Using built-in motherboard raid stuff usually doesnt give too good results.. kinda makes it "work" and thats it. Need a high end MB or a raid card.

I'll be buying 2xm 160gb WD Caviars both with 16mb cache soon. Im putting them into RAID0.


Im pretty sure there wil be a substancial performance increase over a single 320mb hard drive.



Also someone mentioned e6750 vs q6600. Eveyerone keeps syaing that, but if you look at prices, the q6600 is much closer to the e6850 in price. 3ghz vs 2 mroe cores. I look at it from the max overclock value. 2x 3.4ghz vs 4x 3.2ghz. its a no brainer.



You won't see performance the way you might think, RAR files will decompress faster, your OS won't boot much faster if at all...programs will open a little faster but not enough to justify the cost. Basically the way to go is get something with a low response time such as a Raptor, that WILL make your OS boot faster, and more seem more snappy and responsive.
!