Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is there any processor that is twice as fast as the Q6600?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 11, 2010 10:13:03 PM

As my computer turns 2 years old, I'm starting to have upgrade thoughts.

Is there any processor right now that can run twice as fast as a stock Q6600 without overclocking? Assume the programs I run can fully take advantage of all the cores in the CPU.

More about : processor fast q6600

a c 127 à CPUs
March 11, 2010 10:21:48 PM

Not really. The Core i7 does have a much better setup in some things but in others its about 20% faster.

The 45nm Core 2 Quads are on average 15% faster but it really depends on the application and use.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2010 10:33:00 PM

The i7 is 20% faster clock per clock.

I'd reckon the new i7 980 hex-core would probably be 2x faster than the Q6600.

50% more cores + faster clock-per-clock architecture + faster stock clock settings
m
0
l
Related resources
March 11, 2010 10:34:06 PM

I'm asking if there is ANY, doesn't matter how expensive, consumer CPU can run twice as fast. I honestly don't believe after 2 years the best processor is only 20% faster.
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 10:35:55 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
The i7 is 20% faster clock per clock.

I'd reckon the new i7 980 hex-core would probably be 2x faster than the Q6600.

50% more cores + faster clock-per-clock architecture + faster stock clock settings


Is it a server chip?
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
March 11, 2010 10:54:44 PM

chengbin said:
Is it a server chip?


No its a desktop CPU. It will be faster in a lot of areas but not every area.

Its not that the CPU is not, its a lot to do with the software thats not able to utilize the CPUs full potential.
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 11:42:16 PM

Any reason why you are dismissing overclocking right off the bat ?

What specific workload would make you want/need a CPU that is twice as fast then a Q6600 ?



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 11, 2010 11:56:40 PM

the i7 980 is the new extreme i7 chip...coming out in a few weeks. it's based on the 32nm form...smaller & more efficient. the biggest thing over the past 2 years is the die shrinkage...the q6600 was 65nm...now we're seeing the 32nm stuff. much less wattage and heat...better for overclocking. But the i7 980 is still 3.33GHz. Look at this article...you might see benchies comparing the q6600 to some of the i7's. check out the review on anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=376...
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 12:06:13 AM

chengbin said:
I'm asking if there is ANY, doesn't matter how expensive, consumer CPU can run twice as fast. I honestly don't believe after 2 years the best processor is only 20% faster.


3 years
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 12:06:30 AM

I do a lot of video encoding with x264, which can take a lot of cores, easily (or I can encode multiple videos at once)

I feel disappointed and relieved that only an upcoming $1000+ CPU is twice as fast as my Q6600. I'm disappointed that my quad core computer, which is bought 3 years after I bought my Pentium 4 2.8GHz, was a 700% improvement, while 3 years later this upgrade will only be twice as fast.

My wallet will be relieved because I won't have to upgrade for quite a long while.

I dismiss overclocking in this comparison because I want to know the progression of CPU speeds over the last 2 years. Comparing overclock is unfair and will become confusing (I can overclock it to 3.6GHz, no 4GHz, etc)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2010 12:14:51 AM

jimmysmitty said:
No its a desktop CPU. It will be faster in a lot of areas but not every area.

Its not that the CPU is not, its a lot to do with the software thats not able to utilize the CPUs full potential.

It should be faster in every area. It's higher clocked, a newer architecture, has more cache, supports more extensions, and has more cores/threads. It won't be 2x faster in every area, but it should beat the Q6600 across the board.

Here's a comparison: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=142&p2=53...
Note that in some encoding, it's closer to 3x faster rather than 2x, and it's >2x pretty much across the board for encoding/rendering.
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 12:40:05 AM

x264 has i7 optimized code that makes them 40% faster per clock than Penryn, so I'm not surprised.
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 1:31:48 AM

Heh, Netburst was made of hollow megahertz by design, it really was an outlier compared to the P3 -> Core Solo/Duo -> Core 2 Duo/Quad evolution and yeah, not surprised to hear how the jump from a 2.8GHz P4 to a Q6600 felt like from your perspective.

Just give overclocking a try, 20% over stock is a piece of cake...
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 1:38:10 AM

SidVicious said:
Heh, Netburst was made of hollow megahertz by design, it really was an outlier compared to the P3 -> Core Solo/Duo -> Core 2 Duo/Quad evolution and yeah, not surprised to hear how the jump from a 2.8GHz P4 to a Q6600 felt like from your perspective.

Just give overclocking a try, 20% over stock is a piece of cake...


Luckily for me, I bought a Dell to save the trouble to build it myself, have a peace of mind (next day in home service), and save about $200 (yes, it was cheaper buying a Dell). So I can't overclock.

Think of the bright side. By not overclocking I don't shorten the CPU's life span. Since there isn't a fast enough CPU in the market right now to justify an upgrade, and probably won't be for a while, I have to use this computer for at least another 2 years. Then when I do upgrade this computer will become a secondary computer in my living room, where it'll be there for at least 3 years, until I upgrade again. Judging by the way I abuse my CPU (it has been at 100% for 15 hours a day almost all the time either video encoding or folding), I think I might need that extra life span.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2010 2:31:36 AM

The i7s quad cores are a good deal faster than the Q6600. The i7 hex-core will be much faster. The problem the software doesn't exist that would take advantage all the i7's superior architecture, speed, and hyperthreading (or even use 6 physical cores in the case of the i7 980)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2010 2:33:58 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
The i7s quad cores are a good deal faster than the Q6600. The i7 hex-core will be much faster. The problem the software doesn't exist that would take advantage all the i7's superior architecture, speed, and hyperthreading (or even use 6 physical cores in the case of the i7 980)

Actually, the video encoding the OP mentioned is one of the few things that does fully take advantage of the i7 architecture and the 6 cores.
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 6:45:01 AM

chengbin said:
[...] By not overclocking I don't shorten the CPU's life span. [...]


With all due respect dear sir, I'll be polite and call this statement a gross misconception instead of a big fat lie.

Even out of spec overvoltage to push an already overclocked CPU a couple hundred MHz higher stand very little chance of killing a CPU before it and the surrounding platform become obsolete. While I can't give you any broad spectrum statistical analysis, I think that my experience will match that of other "CPU lifespan shortener"

Duron Morgan 1000 @ 1.3 - donated, last heard powering a fileserver in '08, status unknown
AXP Thoroughbred B 1800+ @ 2.1 - donated, handed back to me, still alive
Mobile AXP Barton 2500+ @ 2.5, passed suicide run @ 2.8 on iced water, donated, donated again in '07, status unknown
A64 X2 Manchester 3800+ @ 2.8 on water, retired in late '07, still alive
C2Q G0 Q6600 @ 2.3 - 3.5 on air, can bench 3.6, current CPU

All of those CPUs ran either Prime95 or Folding @ Home 24/7

I bought this Q6600 G0 back in late '07, been running F@H full load 24/7at various clocks as I transitioned from a Asrock 4CoreDual-VSTA (underclocked to 2.3) to a P5Q Deluxe (3.2 to 3.5), still alive, will still be by the time I'll upgrade.

chengbin said:
Judging by the way I abuse my CPU (it has been at 100% for 15 hours a day almost all the time either video encoding or folding), I think I might need that extra life span


Abuse ? 24/7 at stock speed on 100% load is what CPUs are rated for and sold as a minimum guarantee.

Right, you got Dell'ed to save money, great bargain!
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
March 12, 2010 7:12:28 AM

^To expand on that, the Q6600 G0 was highly known and loved for its ability to overclock to 3GHz on the stock voltage and in some cases, like my Q6600 G0, to 3GHz while having a lower than the stock voltage.

I run mine at 3GHz with speedstep enabled so idle is 2GHz and load is 3GHz and it runs like a dream. Will be this way until I can afford to upgrade to a i7 or whatever is there at the time.
m
0
l
March 12, 2010 2:38:38 PM

Q6600 is a dream! Oh and with regards Overclocking, it shouldnt do any damage or wear and tear more than normal. It's been given a 10 year 24 hour 365 days lifespan at its stock voltage, and overclocking without going above that wont detract from it. Increasing the voltage will inevitably cause a bit more wear and tear, but it completely depends on how you want to use it and how long you want it to last for. To be honest I don't want to overclock mine because I dont really have a need for it, eventually when I do upgrade, it'll still be used in a HTPC for as long as it keeps on ticking and Sure for the price of the i7 980x You could go get yourself 4 of the best core2quad cpus, a quad cpu motherboard and still save some money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2010 11:22:41 PM

cjl said:
Actually, the video encoding the OP mentioned is one of the few things that does fully take advantage of the i7 architecture and the 6 cores.


It depends. Comparing a 4 core i7 975 @ 3.33GHz with the 6 core i7 980x @ 3.33GHz:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=376...

For the i7 980 @ 3.33GHz, most of these charts don't show anywhere near a 50% improvement over the 3.33GHz i7 975, whereas some showed no improvement at all. The software still has a long way to go to use 6 cores effectively.
m
0
l
March 13, 2010 12:07:33 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
It depends. Comparing a 4 core i7 975 @ 3.33GHz with the 6 core i7 980x @ 3.33GHz:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=376...

For the i7 980 @ 3.33GHz, most of these charts don't show anywhere near a 50% improvement over the 3.33GHz i7 975, whereas some showed no improvement at all. The software still has a long way to go to use 6 cores effectively.


x264 does take advantage, and it is shown by the charts with almost a 50% increase.

x264 first pass for benchmark is pretty useless, because it only takes slightly more than 1 core. Second pass is the more meaningful one.
m
0
l
June 22, 2010 8:15:57 PM

yes there is , imo , the xeon 6 core will give you quite the boost and if money is no odject , heres what you need - EVGA Classified SR2 Motherboard , it is a dual processor mobo + Two Intel Xeon 5680 Six-Core Processors + 24GB Corsair Tri-Channel DDR3 Memory - that will give you the ultra - mega boost your looking for ..
Just do some research
m
0
l
!