Solution
You can certainly get a better card but to gain "substantial" performance you will have to spend a substantial sum of money to gain an extra 5%. You would be much better off looking at upgrading the core components of CPU Motherboard and RAM before buying a card. Alternatively buy a card now and get the full benefits out of with an upgrade later.
legendkiller
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2011
- 1,812
- 0
- 19,960
Since Q6600 is a quad core at 3.6GHz, probably a GTx 560 will do just fine but like Wamphryi said, it'll only increase performance by little since those C2Q is kinda out dated and you got an out dated MoBo as well... Your RAM will do just fine if you got like 4GB at 1600MHz but anything under 4GB+under 1333MHz, buy new RAMs...
I noted this once to someone else asking a similar question. I would suggest you save the money you would spend now in a cookie jar for a more complete upgrade later. A couple years ago running a E6600 at 3.4ghz I had an 8800 GTX. Playing Bad Company 2, I upgraded to the 275 and noticed a marginal improvement. Probably was not worth the $200 spent. Recently, I did a system rebuild and I bought a 570 superclocked early and popped that in my old system to see if it worked. It worked, but I noticed no change other than crisper textures.
I think an upgrade may yield you a better improvement than I had since you have a quad core and mine was dual core. However, the money you spend now will be worth so much more when both Nvidia and AMD refresh their product lines.
If you do decide to buy a vid card, I would go with the 560 as Legendkiller noted. If you choose to upgrade the rest of your system down the road and you don't wait too long, you can get another 560 and go SLI and have a pretty good system. However, you may run the risk of finding one at a good price depending on how long you wait to upgrade.
I think an upgrade may yield you a better improvement than I had since you have a quad core and mine was dual core. However, the money you spend now will be worth so much more when both Nvidia and AMD refresh their product lines.
If you do decide to buy a vid card, I would go with the 560 as Legendkiller noted. If you choose to upgrade the rest of your system down the road and you don't wait too long, you can get another 560 and go SLI and have a pretty good system. However, you may run the risk of finding one at a good price depending on how long you wait to upgrade.
Cygnus x-1
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2011
- 901
- 0
- 19,060
I personally think the q6600 at 3.6ghz is still very capable of gaming well with a pretty high end card. You didn't mention how much ram you have and what resolution you game at. For normal HD, a 560ti or a 6950 should handle games nicely, and no your cpu won't bottle neck to badly if at all @3.6ghz.
legendkiller
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2011
- 1,812
- 0
- 19,960
It'll bottleneck a 580 for sure because it's outdated+ is a mid-range performance of the LGA 775... The Q6600 isn't even as fast/good as a i3-2100...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=289
EDIT: Since his CPU is at 3.6GHz, i think it'll be performing probably about or a bit higher than i3-2100...
Cygnus x-1
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2011
- 901
- 0
- 19,060
Take a look at these benchmarks http://www.anandtech.com/show/2754/14 keep in mind that the q6600 at 3.6 is every bit as fast as a q9650 at 3.0 if not a tad bit faster.
legendkiller
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2011
- 1,812
- 0
- 19,960
Impossible for an Q6600 to reach the speed of a Q9650 because the Q9650 has 12MB Cache which is way better...
jsc
Champion
- Jul 14, 2004
- 16,893
- 6
- 52,960
At the same core speed, yes. Microarchitecture improvements in the 45 nm cores make them about 10% more efficient. Once you start overclocking, things change.
A Q6600 at 3.6 GHz is about as fast as a Q9550 or Q9650 at 3.3 GHz. The higher speed will compensate for the Q9650's larger cache.
One problem with this approach is that not all Q6600's will run at 3.6 GHz, whereas a Q9650 can almost always run at 3.3 GHz.
LK, two things to keep in mind:
1. The Yorkfields, because they are actually two Wolfdales "glued together" in a single package, do not have a single 12 MB L2 cache. They have 2 separate 6 MB caches. It's not quite the same thing.
2. A really large cache (and 12 a MB total cache is a really large cache) does not help gaming that much. An E8400 with its 6 MB at 3.0 GHz will produce about 10% higher frame rates than an E7500 with its 3 MB cache at 2.93GHz.
That is not bad performance (the E7500) for what is basically a crippled E8200 (half the cache and a lower FSB). And my E7500 is stable at 4.1 GHz.
For that matter, my Q9550 (OC'd to 3.6 GHz), while not an i5-K, is good enough for me to wait for Ivy Bridge.
A Q6600 at 3.6 GHz is about as fast as a Q9550 or Q9650 at 3.3 GHz. The higher speed will compensate for the Q9650's larger cache.
One problem with this approach is that not all Q6600's will run at 3.6 GHz, whereas a Q9650 can almost always run at 3.3 GHz.
LK, two things to keep in mind:
1. The Yorkfields, because they are actually two Wolfdales "glued together" in a single package, do not have a single 12 MB L2 cache. They have 2 separate 6 MB caches. It's not quite the same thing.
2. A really large cache (and 12 a MB total cache is a really large cache) does not help gaming that much. An E8400 with its 6 MB at 3.0 GHz will produce about 10% higher frame rates than an E7500 with its 3 MB cache at 2.93GHz.
That is not bad performance (the E7500) for what is basically a crippled E8200 (half the cache and a lower FSB). And my E7500 is stable at 4.1 GHz.
For that matter, my Q9550 (OC'd to 3.6 GHz), while not an i5-K, is good enough for me to wait for Ivy Bridge.
jonpaul37
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 2,481
- 0
- 19,960
Not sure why people are saying that the Core 2 Quads are outdated in terms of performance. Sure they may be outdated by Microarchitecture technology but performance??? No Way. Core 2 Quad CPU's (talking about Q6600/6700/6800 & Q9450/9550/9650) are still beasts, especially when moderately OC'd
For instance. I had a Q6600 ripping @ 3.6 with an ATI 5870. it handles games VERY well. I then tried the same 5870 in my brother in-law's i5 750 (stock setting) rig and literally saw no difference in real world performance.
That Q6600 @ 3.6 can handle almost any new card to a very high potential.
For instance. I had a Q6600 ripping @ 3.6 with an ATI 5870. it handles games VERY well. I then tried the same 5870 in my brother in-law's i5 750 (stock setting) rig and literally saw no difference in real world performance.
That Q6600 @ 3.6 can handle almost any new card to a very high potential.
aznguy0028
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2007
- 887
- 0
- 18,990
Keep your core 216 man. if you're gonna upgrade, save money and wait for ivy bridge to come out before you buy a new card. It all really depends on what games you play as well. For every single player or small scale multi player out there, the q6600 and 260 is fine. As for me, I saw the biggest difference with Battlefield Bad
Company 2 in terms of FPS.
I had a Q9450 at 3.4ghz with a single 6870 (slightly faster than a 5850), and when I switched to i5 2500k (oc to 4.0), i saw roughly 25-30fps increase, that is a HUGE difference going from 30-45 to 50-65~ just by changing the platforms. All of this are on max settings. That is an indication of CPU bottleneck right there. Then I tested my xfire setup with another 6870, went from 55-85fps on the Q9450, to 120-180 on the i5 2500k. Looking at MSi afterburner gpu usage, both my gpu's never got above 44% in any scenario with the q9450. With the i5 2500k, both gpus are at 99% at all times during gaming. Even though I was getting near 60+ fps on the xfire w/q9450, during intense action, the fps would still stay the same as with a single card, (~35-40 on cold war map), which is a huge indicator of bottleneck and the system just felt massively more responsive when i went to i5.
Since your cpu/gpu is still viable, depending on the games you play, hold out for a bit longer and go for the platform change along with the new cards being released later this year/early next year.
Finally, to answer your question, I would say if you really had to get a card, probably a gtx 460 or 6850 at max. Any other card beyond that, imo, would be a waste with the q6600.
Company 2 in terms of FPS.
I had a Q9450 at 3.4ghz with a single 6870 (slightly faster than a 5850), and when I switched to i5 2500k (oc to 4.0), i saw roughly 25-30fps increase, that is a HUGE difference going from 30-45 to 50-65~ just by changing the platforms. All of this are on max settings. That is an indication of CPU bottleneck right there. Then I tested my xfire setup with another 6870, went from 55-85fps on the Q9450, to 120-180 on the i5 2500k. Looking at MSi afterburner gpu usage, both my gpu's never got above 44% in any scenario with the q9450. With the i5 2500k, both gpus are at 99% at all times during gaming. Even though I was getting near 60+ fps on the xfire w/q9450, during intense action, the fps would still stay the same as with a single card, (~35-40 on cold war map), which is a huge indicator of bottleneck and the system just felt massively more responsive when i went to i5.
Since your cpu/gpu is still viable, depending on the games you play, hold out for a bit longer and go for the platform change along with the new cards being released later this year/early next year.
Finally, to answer your question, I would say if you really had to get a card, probably a gtx 460 or 6850 at max. Any other card beyond that, imo, would be a waste with the q6600.
Another issues that the C2Q series has is that it lacks Turbo Boost and this is a significant liability in single threaded applications. Many games are single thread. Of course clocking the C2Q series to a higher clock rate can help in this area but Sandy Bridge K is designed for overclocking and can top out over 4 GHZ in some cases. I see that there is a wide range of advice on that matter and all of it good. On the weight of it I would stick with your configuration until you can upgrade the CPU etc as well as the GPU. Otherwise you will likely spend money that will not gain you the performance you are seeking.
jonpaul37
Distinguished
- May 29, 2008
- 2,481
- 0
- 19,960
Way i see it, OP is in the market for upgrading graphics, probably about $150 - $275 to spend and does not want to have to upgrade the CPU/RAM/MoBo just yet as that would cost upward of $500 for a decent setup, therefore, to the OP, you can get whatever video card your heart desires and then upgrade your CPU/RAM/MoBo at a later date and your video card will still be there. If you have $500+ now, then, well, you can get a new MoBo/CPU/RAM combo but now you're limited to the performance of a GTX 260.
legendkiller
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2011
- 1,812
- 0
- 19,960
LGA 775 is not beast, they are dead trast by now due to replacement... My I7 950 with 4Coer 4Thread Encoded a 1Hours video/movie/DVD x 3(three DVD with 1 hours each) and in 4 days, it complete awhile it took my bro's Q9550 at 3.6GHz about 7-9 hours longer, HTT woulda made my Encode finish probably in 3 days OR probably few hours faster like 4-12 hours faster... BTW my 950 was at stock because it was just like few days after i got my build and didn't get to OC it
Cygnus x-1
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2011
- 901
- 0
- 19,060
I think some have sort of lost track of the original question. It's not a question of a new i7's or last gen i7's being faster, it's whether or not his chip at 3.6 will slow down a high end graphics card in gaming. I believe the answer is no.
- Jan 12, 2007
- 16,707
- 660
- 60,190
I run a Q6600 @3.4ghz and SLI GTX260's...haven't played a game yet that I couldn't run on full settings. I know this is a little late, but I wanted to chime in with relevant hardware comparisons.
legendkiller
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2011
- 1,812
- 0
- 19,960
Mt i7-950 at 3.8GHz just smoke your 4GHz Q6600
... LMSAOYeah, I believe you can run the two card but i'd recommend getting the 560Ti for 1920x1080 monitors, anything over the 560Ti for 1920x1080 is a overkill...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram