Why is Q6600 so famous?!

[Pharaun]

I've been reading the forums a lot these days, and everywhere I look I see people adding Q6600 to their systems. The reviews of TH say that computer games or even software don't use more than 2 cores today, so why buy a Quad processor? And it's 317$ too! Quite expensive when you compare to a E6750 which is 223$. (In my country at least). Plus there's the fact that some games actually work better in Core 2 duos because of the clock speeds/core management or something. As I've understood, the only thing you could gain by buying a quad processor is being able to run complicated software like 3dmax, photoshop etc faster (though I don't know about the ultra mega superb extreme pwnzor editions, I'm talking about quads around Q6600). I'll be playing games and hanging out with the xp.

Well.. the thing is, I'm planning to upgrade my cpu, graphic card, mainboard and ram in a few weeks and it is already frustrating to pay almost 300$ to a 8800GT, and I thought I would buy at most an E6750 with it, and saw many people who are getting a Q6600. Can you guys tell me why this processor is preferred a lot? Need I try and save more and get a Q6600 instead of a E6750? If I did, what would be the advantages and disadvantages(other than paying more)?

Also I am wondering that if I bought, let's say an E6550 or even an E4500 along with a 8800GT, would I suffer from bottlenecks? Which would be the lowest processor I can buy along a 8800GT, and be OK with it?

This is my first post by the way. The forum simply rocks. Hello everyone!

 

[yomamafor1]

For one, its not outrageously priced (260USD in US), and can be easily overclocked to 3.0Ghz more. For the same amount of cost as E6850, which is a 3.0Ghz dual core, it makes a lot more sense to get an addition of two cores.

http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A1938460

But you're right. Most games don't take advantage more than two cores. Even Crysis only takes advantage of two cores. Unless you're doing video editing and decoding, quad core means overkill. I guess since hardware, especially CPU, is becoming a lot more affordable, therefore quad core becomes a really attractive item for bragging right . Think about it, is it easier to brag about your 3.0Ghz dual core, which starts to become the norm, or a 3.0Ghz quad core?

 

[Dirty_Barry]

It's awesome, cheap and Intel managed to get it right.

 

[killz86]

I agree with the post above mine. Th Q6600 is more then what you need. but it will last for a few years to come. so you spend $266 or $320. now ok you think thats alot of money for a cpu. but in the long run it will pa it self off mine already has. as i can do tons of gaming. and other stuff. like run virus scan's and playmusic and games. and no lag. is if your asking your self is the quad worth it sure in the hell is. also you can o/c it to 3.0/1333 very easy and the cpu will not get hot. we'll mine dont. but alot of them dont


just my 2 cent's

Brian

 

[Pharaun]

For one, its not outrageously priced (260USD in US), and can be easily overclocked to 3.0Ghz more. For the same amount of cost as E6850, which is a 3.0Ghz dual core, it makes a lot more sense to get an addition of two cores.

http://clubit.com/product_detail.cfm?itemno=A1938460

But you're right. Most games don't take advantage more than two cores. Even Crysis only takes advantage of two cores. Unless you're doing video editing and decoding, quad core means overkill. I guess since hardware, especially CPU, is becoming a lot more affordable, therefore quad core becomes a really attractive item for bragging right . Think about it, is it easier to brag about your 3.0Ghz dual core, which starts to become the norm, or a 3.0Ghz quad core?

260USD in US? Wow thats a lot cheaper than it is in my country. It's 317USD + the tax here which makes 330USD. But with some deals with the credit card I can lover the cost to about 300USD. Still 40USD more expensive than it is in US.

About quads, you may be right. I mean, i think there's a "even quads are useless with games, they are cool so lets buy a quad" thing going on among the people these days.

 

[Pharaun]

I agree with the post above mine. Th Q6600 is more then what you need. but it will last for a few years to come. so you spend $266 or $320. now ok you think thats alot of money for a cpu. but in the long run it will pa it self off mine already has. as i can do tons of gaming. and other stuff. like run virus scan's and playmusic and games. and no lag. is if your asking your self is the quad worth it sure in the hell is. also you can o/c it to 3.0/1333 very easy and the cpu will not get hot. we'll mine dont. but alot of them dont

Now this makes sense. A year later maybe I may use the quad I bought to its full performance. I may regret getting a Core 2 duo a year later. Plus it can help me use the software I use faster yeah. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Rolenio]

If you are on a tight budget and building a rig mainly for gaming, I'd say 2 cores still make sense (like E6550, not the E6850).
You can buy a quad core later (and a better one) when you really need it.

 

[Reynod]

QX6600 is priced at the point where the dual core logic doesn't hold - at it's current price and stepping there is no reason (for an enthusiast) to buy a dual core.

Different logic for a person who doesn't overclock - for them there is still sufficient cause to buy a faster dual core ... and see real benefit on most things ... because they don't overclock, and the number of multithreaded apps are still low.

That's the reason why the QX6600 is the enthusiast's choice at present ... other than the E6 series.

It now sits proudly up there with the

300A Celery
XP1700
XP2500Barton
2.4Northwood


And a few others I neglect due to laziness.

 

[cnumartyr]

I'm priming 3.6 GHz right now while I go to work. I did it last night and it failed after 2.5 hours. I'll try it again now with a bit more voltage.

I love quads

 

[night_wolf_in]

im running it at 3Ghz now.n it is superb. so if i need more (future). ill overclock it more.

 

[kittyhawk]

It's true that many applications today can't take advantage of 4 CPU cores. But that will change when quad core CPUs become mainstream next year (I think).

In my opinion, it is better to get a lower clocked quad core CPU than a faster clocked dual core CPU.

 

[Phenium 4 FX]

Because you can add clock but you cannot add cores.

 

[Pharaun]

reynod: So i can either get a Q6600 and overclock it to 3.0ghz or get an E6750 and do the same. Buying an E6850 is silly because it has nearly the same price with Q6600.

cnumartyr&night_wolf_in: so my question is this: Is it easy to overcloak to 3ghz? Does it require getting a special fan? Is it dangerous?

kittyhawk: if you think it like that, it's better to get a quad next year. But getting a quad anyway and overclocking it for as long and much as you can seems reasonable. I don't think they are going to produce any higher models than E6875 so Core 2 duos are bound to become older and older anyway.

Phenium 4 FX: Yeah.. if you put it that way. Do you know how much clock speed one can achieve at most before it comes to a dangerous level? 3.6?

 

[Rolenio]

It should be easy to OC to 3.0 even with stock cooler.
I forgot to mention that with quads you also get more heat (and usually noise), so that may be a downside if noise or power consumption bother you.
I'm not implying Q6600 is not a good choice cause it is, but it's still not a must and there are some cons.

 

[Rolenio]

Then again, if you really need to scan for viruses, listen to music and play games at the same time , the choice is obvious...

 

[cnumartyr]

It should be easy to OC to 3.0 even with stock cooler.
I forgot to mention that with quads you also get more heat (and usually noise), so that may be a downside if noise or power consumption bother you.
I'm not implying Q6600 is not a good choice cause it is, but it's still not a must and there are some cons.

I would not try 3.0 GHz on a stock cooler. Maybe it works, but I wouldn't try it.

Tuniq, Zalman 9700, Ultra 120X.. anything like that will work for 3.0 GHz. The TRUE will take it over 3.6 GHz (If you have a good chip).

 

[Pharaun]

Power consumption doesn't bother me because I have a rather good PSU at the moment. Though it's a bit old. I bought it for 100$. Hmm.. it's more old than a bit old. Must be 2 years old at least. Would I need to buy a new psu for overcloaking?

How much noise are we talking about? I really hate when it's too loud.

So I am going to need a cooler. How much will I need to spend on it? By the way, if OCing isnt a must, for now I can hangout with the way it is I think. Though reynod said buy a core 2 if you won't OC..

 

[Pharaun]

Has anyone who OC'ed Q6600 with the stock cooler? If it's a risk I wouldn't wanna try it since I am an amateur at this.

 

[rodney_ws]

The Q6600 became a celebrity the moment people realized that Intel was in fact going to lower its price to $266. That's probably the same moment in time that AMD said "OH #%@!"

 

[Pharaun]

lol
It's a shame they sell it for 317$+tax in Turkey..

 

[Phenium 4 FX]

The Q6600 became a celebrity the moment people realized that Intel was in fact going to lower its price to $266. That's probably the same moment in time that AMD said "OH #%@!"

hahaha! :lol:

It's like "Oh no, my Phenom".

 

[Rolenio]

If you are a beginner you really should read some guides to OC-ing first, otherwise you can fry your CPU even with a best cooler. Leaving voltages on auto is a common mistake, for example.
I played a bit with my father's q6600 and got the impression that 3.0 on stock is possible with that one, but you should know what you're doing. I also assume that you will get the G0 stepping. I can't check anything now cause I live 300 km away, but hopefully someone else can confirm it from first hand. Anyway, I saw many reports that it's possible.
The noise is hard to quantify... depends on your tolerance, I guess. I would get a good aftermarket cooler in any case (cnumartyr mentioned some).

 

[easyg]

Also I think the popularity of E6600 w/ overclockers helped to pave the way for the Q6600. From June 06 till middle 2007, the 2.4GHz C2D, was by far the most popular enthusiast chip on the Intel side at about $300. Q6600 is basically two E6600s glued together. When the Q6600 started costing less than what folks remembered the E6600 as costing, they naturally viewed the Q6600 as something of a super bargain. Twice the cores and twice the cache, but costing less than the ol' E6600??? OMG!!! Yeah, folks just went crazy over that. Regardless of whether they needed the extra cores or not, they figured they were getting something (2 extra cores) for no additional cost.

 

[hixbot]

easy g, you joined in 1970? funny i didn't think there was a world wide web back then. let alone, tomshardware.

 

[pony]

because it worth, and it's current most performance/pirce CPU