Q6600 proccy

[gamingstill]

is q6600 good enough to be used with upcoming radeon hd 58xx(5870) hi-end cars?
q6600 acts as a bootle neck with 2-4 gb ddr2 800 mhz RAM??///

 

[Maziar]

I have a Q6600@ 3.4 with a HD 4870X2 and its blazingly fast,i think i will be fine for next ATI cards too

 

[invisik]

It will bottleneck the next gen cards if it is left at stock speeds. Overclocking to 3.0ghz+
will resolve the issue.

 

[jsc]

And with a decent HSF, you should be able to easily increase the FSB to 367 MHz yielding 3.3 GHz.

I had mine running at 3.6 GHz.

 

[michaelmk86]

I have a Q6600@ 3.2GHz fsb1600MHz with GTX295 and I get 15% less performance than a corei7 & GTX295. I do not thing the Q6600 can handle the new generations cards DX11.

 

[sefit]

I have a Q6600@ 3.2GHz fsb1600MHz with GTX295 and I get 15% less performance than a corei7 & GTX295. I do not thing the Q6600 can handle the new generations cards DX11.

How did you get this number? I mean 15%. On legionhardware webpage (link http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=1) there is an article on performance of different CPUs scaling with GTX 295 and difference is not so significant. When you compare Q9650 at 3.3 and Core i7 965 at 3.6 you get the difference something between 1% to 8 % with one exception and that’s World in Conflict (18%). There might be some small performance difference between Q6600 at 3.3 and Q9650 at 3.3 but the performance difference ratio might be pretty much same as between i7 920 at 3.6 and i7 965 at 3.6. Do you have some other experience? Share your benchmarks and/or comparison to Core i7 if you can. I am planning to buy GTX 295 this week and my system has q6600. It would be definitely helpful for me to get first hand experience from someone running q6600 with GTX 295 . Thanx

 

[michaelmk86]

How did you get this number? I mean 15%. On legionhardware webpage (link http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=1) there is an article on performance of different CPUs scaling with GTX 295 and difference is not so significant. When you compare Q9650 at 3.3 and Core i7 965 at 3.6 you get the difference something between 1% to 8 % with one exception and that’s World in Conflict (18%). There might be some small performance difference between Q6600 at 3.3 and Q9650 at 3.3 but the performance difference ratio might be pretty much same as between i7 920 at 3.6 and i7 965 at 3.6. Do you have some other experience? Share your benchmarks and/or comparison to Core i7 if you can. I am planning to buy GTX 295 this week and my system has q6600. It would be definitely helpful for me to get first hand experience from someone running q6600 with GTX 295 . Thanx

 

[michaelmk86]

How did you get this number? I mean 15%. On legionhardware webpage (link http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=1) there is an article on performance of different CPUs scaling with GTX 295 and difference is not so significant. When you compare Q9650 at 3.3 and Core i7 965 at 3.6 you get the difference something between 1% to 8 % with one exception and that’s World in Conflict (18%). There might be some small performance difference between Q6600 at 3.3 and Q9650 at 3.3 but the performance difference ratio might be pretty much same as between i7 920 at 3.6 and i7 965 at 3.6. Do you have some other experience? Share your benchmarks and/or comparison to Core i7 if you can. I am planning to buy GTX 295 this week and my system has q6600. It would be definitely helpful for me to get first hand experience from someone running q6600 with GTX 295 . Thanx

This 15% is with 1680x1050 resolution the benchmarks in legionhardware show deferens in performance around 15% in 1680x1050 but with resolution 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 there is no deferens. For example in Crysis 1680x1050 veryhigh DX10 CrysisBenchmark I get 43fps and a corei7 920 @4GHz with same settings get 48fps. In World in Conflict I get 55fps veryhigh DX10 AAx16 AFx16 but if use veryhigh DX10 AAx4 AFx4 I get only 57fps, 2fps is a little performance gain for turning down the AA and AF from 16 to 4 that is CPU limit. But anyway I am very happy with the performance, 15% is not a big deal.

 

[sefit]

This 15% is with 1680x1050 resolution the benchmarks in legionhardware show deferens in performance around 15% in 1680x1050 but with resolution 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 there is no deferens. For example in Crysis 1680x1050 veryhigh DX10 CrysisBenchmark I get 43fps and a corei7 920 @4GHz with same settings get 48fps. In World in Conflict I get 55fps veryhigh DX10 AAx16 AFx16 but if use veryhigh DX10 AAx4 AFx4 I get only 57fps, 2fps is a little performance gain for turning down the AA and AF from 16 to 4 that is CPU limit. But anyway I am very happy with the performance, 15% is not a big deal.

OK now I gotcha. So actually you own GTX295 at 1650x1050 res...maybe time to move up on higher res. You already bought pretty expensive card so try to find some cash at the bottom of your wallet…moreover everything in USA is so CHEAP (when you compare it to EU prices)

But I am glad what you said indeed I will be gaming at 1920x1200 and gaming is only my interest at my PC therefore I decided to bet on graphic card and 26 inch monitor and skip Core i7 upgrade...I should be satisfied… hopefully

Thank you for input and help to decide correctly...appreciate it, dude.

P.S. try to game Crysis on very high with some 4 AA and full AF under DX9…difference in graphics - none, difference in performance – massive. Very bad optimization under Vista, I do not follow why everybody is playing this game under DX10 with no virtually graphics difference.