Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 OCed 3.4 worth behing changed for i7?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 8, 2009 8:21:35 PM

i was wondering if it would worth changing my q6600 at 3.4 for an i7 cpu ... or if i should keep it ?

something sure i will change my 8800 gtx for the 5970 ati ... but i was wondering about cpus ... thx you

and btw how many core have the i7? 8 ???

More about : q6600 oced worth behing changed

a b à CPUs
December 8, 2009 8:24:36 PM

i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 logical cores due to HT. So it is a quad core CPU. Honestly a Q6600 at 3.4 is a very capable gaming CPU, even today. I could see your CPU handling the 5970 pretty decently but you'd have to test to see, I haven't seen any benchmarks with Kentsfield on that kind of GPU setup. If I was you I would start out getting the 5970 then compare to some other benchmarks and see if your Q6600 is holding it back by more than you'd like.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2009 10:34:28 PM

WoW going from a 8800GTX to a 5970, that is like going from a toyota to a porsche... lol

If you are going to overclock the i7 to 3.8Ghz and beyond then I say go for it, if not don't throw your money away...The Q6600 should not bottleneck the 5970 at such clocks, and if it does it will be minor...

m
0
l
Related resources
December 8, 2009 10:48:29 PM

wow... 5970? if you go the money to get a 650$ video card then why not another 300 on an i5? but on the other hand, your current cpu might not limit you, so if you feel like using up more cash, then go ahead.
m
0
l
December 8, 2009 11:24:43 PM

its nothing about the money ... its all about if the move worth it ...

the gpu need change obviously soon ... but yes , i was not sure about the performance of i7 cpu ... if the difference would be HUGE i would change it ...

but i have to admit my q6600 at 3.4ghz have great performance and also it can be pushed to 3.6 easy though ....( since it run really cold atm )




and btw the card will fall price in 2-3 month ( like 15% less ) so ima buy this first then maybe upgrade cpu once the move will worth the cash ...

thx for answer guys

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2009 11:26:47 PM

The Q6600 is fine for now, expect a 5%-10% bottleneck which is fine. I recommend going LGA 1156 soon, but it isn't required. BTW, looking at your sig, if you are gaming at 1650x1050 res then do not even think about wasting money on the 5970 unless a monitor upgrade is in your near future. A 5970 is a waste on a 1920x1200 res monitor, but it is more except-able if you factor in future proofing.
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
December 8, 2009 11:43:33 PM

The Q6600 is two generations behind but it is still a really good CPU. Pop the new video card in and wait a year to upgrade the CPU/motherboard.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2009 11:49:34 PM

I think the OP should be looking at the 5850/5870 and not the 5970. I don't see the point in spending 650.00/700.00$ on a GPU when his whole system is less than that...
m
0
l
December 9, 2009 6:14:41 AM

+1 to OvrClkr

I had Q6600 overclocked to 3.6 GHz but than prices dropped for q9650 and I went with that one just to be able to have better overclocking. so now I have that Q9650 overclocked to 4.23 GHz and I guess I'll be sticking to this one until 32nm are here.
as of GPU, indeed 5790 is bit too extreme... Up to 1920x1200 5870 is more that enough... though I'm curious what are the plans from nVidia... But so far, it looks nVidia is going away... :-/
m
0
l
December 9, 2009 7:03:12 AM

to make it short, it is about having balanced rig...
m
0
l
December 9, 2009 2:11:17 PM

I'm running a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz with 2x 5850's just fine on a 22" wide screen (just upgraded from a 8800gtx ultra) myself.
Thats with 8gb DDR 800 however.

Runs anything i care to throw at it on maximum settings without an issue what so ever (including dual monitor for some games I have tried).

Imo, don't waste money on an I7 if you have your Q6600 @ 3.0ghz or higher.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 9, 2009 3:34:47 PM

wow dual 5850's with a 22"??
m
0
l
December 9, 2009 7:25:35 PM

shoot im rolling with a Q6600 @ 3.2 ATM prob gonna keep this crap till the 6-8core Procs come out.

I believe this generation (i7/i5)is only like 15-30% (to a decent O/Ced Q6600) increase in performance yet for the price of moving up to a new Motherboard,Ram,CPU its not really needed unless your going to build a completely new pC in essence.

Gonna be getting a HD5850 on this rig soon then prob just hold out till the 6-8core (Gulftown?) comes out, that is probably when it would be worthy of spending the jingle and upgrading from a G0 setting Q6600.

That also being said i would highly look into the HD5850 100 bucks less in some cases and the performance difference between the HD5850/5870 is like what 10fps or so?
m
0
l
December 9, 2009 7:32:07 PM

Yeah, strictly opinion wise, I wouldn't upgrade. I can't imagine you being stopped by any game w/ that rig.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2009 6:20:17 AM

I wouldn't upgrade as well,i have a Q6600 @ 3.4 like you with a HD 4870X2 and i am pretty happy with overall performance.
upgrading your 8800GTX would be a wiser choice,it seems you have a 22" monitor,so even a single HD 5870 would be fine for you :) 
m
0
l
December 11, 2009 12:27:05 AM

well , u guys seem to say that the 5970 will be waste because of my monitor but , i dont get it because in tomshardware's review about the 5970 , the card have best performance at my resolution 1680x1050..

ex : crisis 1680x1050 : 5970 = 52 fps
5870 = 37 fps

farcry2 1680x1050 : 5970 = 102 fps
5870 = 66 fps

i would understand if fps would be same at low resolution ( 1680x1050 ) and like i posted at higher .. but not the case .

maybe something i dont understand ?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 11, 2009 4:34:35 AM

nemoreborn said:
well , u guys seem to say that the 5970 will be waste because of my monitor but , i dont get it because in tomshardware's review about the 5970 , the card have best performance at my resolution 1680x1050..

ex : crisis 1680x1050 : 5970 = 52 fps
5870 = 37 fps

farcry2 1680x1050 : 5970 = 102 fps
5870 = 66 fps

i would understand if fps would be same at low resolution ( 1680x1050 ) and like i posted at higher .. but not the case .

maybe something i dont understand ?


Not really, in Crysis Warhead the 5970 = 61FPS at 1920x1200 so that means that at 1680x1050 you should get at least 75FPS.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5970-review-tes...

A 5970 is suited for a good 24" and above.
m
0
l
December 11, 2009 11:54:28 PM

nemoreborn said:
i was wondering if it would worth changing my q6600 at 3.4 for an i7 cpu ... or if i should keep it ?

something sure i will change my 8800 gtx for the 5970 ati ... but i was wondering about cpus ... thx you

and btw how many core have the i7? 8 ???

Nah you don't really need a new cpu at that resolution even a 5850 would suffice, one thing you have to understand is that there is only so much in terms of fps that the hyuman eye can see so even though on paper the 5970 gets more fps than the 5870/5850 in reality the difference is virtually none to the human now if you game at 1920x1080 or above the difference will be more evident and on a 24 inch monitor or above the 5970 would be the more sensible choice but at tyour resoultion the very best performance for the price would be the 5850 or 5870 unless you want to futureproof but even then you would be better off gettting a 5850 and upgrading when the prices make more sense
m
0
l
December 12, 2009 9:58:00 PM

ya maybe ill wait for few month more and upgrade for 5970 since probly price will be lower ... not sure yet ... 5870 seems a great card too , just not sure how decent will wun crysis with 5870 ... i want nothing under 35 fps in rush action
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2009 10:57:11 PM

At 1650x1050, the 5870 should be able to do that just fine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 12:39:09 AM

If I could afford a 5970 I'm sure I'd have a 30" monitor. :)  Ultimate gaming experience, if you ask me.
Btw, in case it wasn't cleared up. @nemoreborn, they aren't saying your 5970 isn't good for your resolution, they are just saying it is overkill. Unless I read it the wrong way.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 12:46:44 AM

In other words, you will get the same performance using a 5870 or 5970 at that resolution, basically throwing money away for nothing unless you decided to upgrade to a larger + higher res screen.....
m
0
l
December 13, 2009 12:55:34 AM

i know the 5970 have more capability since 2 gpu so better for high resolution, but no , the 5970 is not the same as the 5870 even at 1650x1050

its pretty clear with the bench i showed up ... ( copy from tom's 5970 review )

here again

ex : crisis 1680x1050 : 5970 = 52 fps
5870 = 37 fps

farcry2 1680x1050 : 5970 = 102 fps
5870 = 66 fps

can add more games but its almost always the same % of fps improvement.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 1:02:59 AM

The problem is that Crysis is the ONLY game that will show any difference, you can't notice the difference between 60 FPS and 100 FPS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 1:13:59 AM

By the same they mean that both cards will give you plenty playable framerates. Crysis is nearly the only game (like AMW said) that will show you an increase you will really feel.

All they are saying is that you should save your money and spend it on something you will use or do whatever.

IMO, if you have the money, go for it. Nothing wrong with a little overkill if you can afford it. :)  Not to mention bragging rights. Although if you wait for a couple months (maybe settle with a single 5870) you might be able to save some money when prices drop.

If you do get it, post up some crysis benchmarks on your Q6600. I'm curious how Kentsfield stacks up with those.
m
0
l
December 13, 2009 1:16:08 AM

good point ...thats why im considering 5870 also . so yeah , if the 5970 dont drop $ in 3 month , its gonna be the 5870
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2009 1:27:21 AM

nemoreborn said:
i know the 5970 have more capability since 2 gpu so better for high resolution, but no , the 5970 is not the same as the 5870 even at 1650x1050

its pretty clear with the bench i showed up ... ( copy from tom's 5970 review )

here again

ex : crisis 1680x1050 : 5970 = 52 fps
5870 = 37 fps

farcry2 1680x1050 : 5970 = 102 fps
5870 = 66 fps

can add more games but its almost always the same % of fps improvement.


I don't know where you are gettin those numbers but it will vary depending on system. The 5870 gets between 45-55FPS (1680x1050) with no xAA (Enthusiast). The 5970 will get around 15-25 more frames than the 5870. And and just like AMW pointed out, Crysis/GTA4/Stalker are the only games that will benefit from the stronger GPU, all other games run excellent on a single 5870 at that resolution. Look, you can buy whatever whatever you want, we are just giving you a heads up on what to expect. If you want to play at that res with full xAA then go ahead, but remember you are paying more than 250.00$ more for a small increase in performance ;) 
m
0
l
!