Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Q6600@3.6Ghz, whats the best video card that won't be bottlenecked?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2011 5:10:15 AM

I'm running a Q6600@3.6Ghz with a GTX260 (Core 216).

What video card (if any) will give me a substantial performance boost over my GTX260 without being bottle-necked by my processor?

Thanks!
a b U Graphics card
August 9, 2011 6:08:11 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 9, 2011 6:22:30 AM

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...
Related resources
August 9, 2011 2:27:41 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 12:24:13 AM

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.

a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 1:20:54 AM

Cygnus x-1 said:
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.

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...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 2:17:33 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 3:13:53 AM

Cygnus x-1 said:
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.

Impossible for an Q6600 to reach the speed of a Q9650 because the Q9650 has 12MB Cache which is way better...
a b U Graphics card
a c 197 K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 3:55:15 AM

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 b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 4:09:53 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2011 8:48:53 PM

It is still a viable processor but the difference can be startling when compared to the i series depending on use. My C2Q took 40% longer to encode in MPEG2 than my i7 Lynnfield for instance.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 8:58:10 PM

Wamphryi said:
It is still a viable processor but the difference can be startling when compared to the i series depending on use. My C2Q took 40% longer to encode in MPEG2 than my i7 Lynnfield for instance.



True dat, True dat, i should have specified

my argument was for gaming and not CPU intensive tasks such as encoding, etc...
August 10, 2011 9:25:08 PM

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.
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 9:44:03 PM

When I went from a Q6600 @ 3.6 to an i7 920 there was a noticable difference when using the same Nvidia 295 GTX graphics card.
a b U Graphics card
August 10, 2011 11:16:54 PM

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.

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 10, 2011 11:51:51 PM
Share

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 11, 2011 12:02:05 AM

jonpaul37 said:
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

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
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 11, 2011 12:20:45 PM

legendkiller said:
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



Please count 7 posts up...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 11, 2011 12:39:36 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 11, 2011 6:08:00 PM

Exactly, that was the point i was trying to stick to, hehe
a b U Graphics card
a c 324 K Overclocking
August 24, 2011 12:28:46 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 24, 2011 3:10:57 AM

rubix_1011 said:
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.

Lol...
August 24, 2011 4:24:22 AM

Well to tell the truth Q6600 at 4GHZ got better than I7 930 in super pi.
Got better like in 1 sec. (1M calculation)
So dont say its a bad cpu.
I belive u can run 6950 FIne or max 570 with small bottleneck and not superclocked.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 24, 2011 12:00:20 PM

prorules said:
Well to tell the truth Q6600 at 4GHZ got better than I7 930 in super pi.
Got better like in 1 sec. (1M calculation)
So dont say its a bad cpu.
I belive u can run 6950 FIne or max 570 with small bottleneck and not superclocked.

Mt i7-950 at 3.8GHz just smoke your 4GHz Q6600 :D ... LMSAO
Yeah, 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...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 25, 2011 3:10:59 PM

prorules said:
Well to tell the truth Q6600 at 4GHZ got better than I7 930 in super pi.
Got better like in 1 sec. (1M calculation)
So dont say its a bad cpu.
I belive u can run 6950 FIne or max 570 with small bottleneck and not superclocked.



Might be overboard on that one. I do know for a fact that the Q9650 @ 3.6 can hold its own against the i7 920 in games and it flat out beats the i5 750 most of the time...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 25, 2011 3:47:35 PM

Quote:
overclocked 6600 @ 3.6GHz is a virtual tie with the stock i7-920 when @ stock.
i7-930 might be still better in performance...
same for the i5-750, I'll give it that too.
but when you clock the i5 or i7, the Q6600 is left in the dust.
period.
your better off trying the Q9650 instead or any Q8/Q9 series.
they clock better than the Q6 series and the performance @ stock is also better.


I agree, this is my original point. The OP can run top-line single video cards for gaming and see little bottleneck if any... that sound correct to you?

I believe that when SLI/crossfire/dual come into play it will be different though...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 25, 2011 7:16:35 PM

You have a similar setup as my brother in law, same CPU, same GPU's and same SSD.

In fact, that was the system i used to test out my 5870. had it in my Q6600 rig @ 3.6 then ran the same benchies in his i5 750 rig @ stock. Results were pretty dame close for the most part in regards to games.

I have to hand it to Intel, their late core 2 architecture was pretty legit and still trades blows with AMD's PhenomII offerings. In regards to gaming that is...
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 26, 2011 4:15:25 AM

Quote:
looks like a Q9450 and a 955 are dead even.
a Q9550 will beat the 955.
the Q8xx and the Q6xx do not come close.
now these are stock clocks but the comparison shouldn't matter because we are speaking of overclocking to a certain speed.
clocking a Q6600 1GHz higher seems to be the norm while I see 955BE's hit 3.8GHz without much tweaking.
seems like a even playing ground.

The !9550 is like the best LGA 775 Processor because anything higher than Q9550 is higher Clock...
August 26, 2011 8:54:06 AM

I would sell your motherboard, CPU, RAM, and video card on ebay and then buy an 1155 socket motherboard, an i5 2500k, and some DDR3.

I recently sold my E8400 core 2 duo, p5q pro turbo, ATI 4870, and 4 gigs of DDR 2 for $390... I never thought I would get that much but apparently people still spend a good amount of money on older hardware.

I purchased an ASRock extreme 3 gen 3, i5 2500k, 8 gigs of DDR3 1600, and a GTX 560 ti.

I spent about $580 total... That's a major upgrade for $190.
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 26, 2011 1:24:32 PM

Quote:
I do not see it being better than the Intel SB however.


How sweet that would be... if Bulldozer is close to SB, send a poet because my words would be folly.
a b U Graphics card
a c 324 K Overclocking
August 26, 2011 3:08:02 PM

Quote:
rubix_1011 wrote :

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.

Lol...


OK?

Quote:
Mt i7-950 at 3.8GHz just smoke your 4GHz Q6600 ... LMSAO
Yeah, 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...


Good for you, congratulations. If you really don't have anything that is actually value-added for the actual conversation, simply replying for the sake of your own e-peen doesn't really get anyone, anywhere. I simply replied because the OP was asking about hardware almost identical to what I could attest to running and actual experiences.

It has nothing to do with comparing his rig against your almighty powerhouse PC of the entire universe. My point being- address what is being asked on the thread; stop hijacking and using it for your own attempt to brag.

Quote:
bottom line.
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz can handle high performance GPU's.
I feel that anything more than a GTX 560 Ti paired with the Q6600 then the CPU will not push the GPU to it's performance peaks..
Considering the age of the Q and the LGA 775, it's time to move on up to newer architecture when it comes to CPU and socket/motherboard.
I'm not saying @ 3.6GHZ it can't game but is just behind in the times now.
so yes, it can get you by in the meantime save up for a new set of hardware..


Very well put, my friend.
a b U Graphics card
October 27, 2011 2:07:30 PM

Best answer selected by gmkos.
a b U Graphics card
a c 205 K Overclocking
October 28, 2011 3:59:50 PM

This topic has been closed by 4ryan6
!