From E6600 to Q6600

I have just upgraded from a E6600 ( Intel core 2 duo, dual core @2.4 gig)

I just put in a Q6600 (Intel core 2 [email protected] gig)

Was it worth it, I will be testing the rig ( the processor was the only change).

It seemed to boot quicker, and ATS pages seem to be loading faster.

I will post more as I complete testing.

reply to post by mrmonsoon


I am using my Antec 9700 CPU cooler. Online, listening to music and posting my 4 cores are ranging from 26-28C, a very good low number.

When I loaded crysis, it auto changed everything to medium/high.

Thats kewl MrMon. Ive been contemplating making the exact change out. Now you can guinea pig it for me.

Load up some benchmark scores to compare if you have any from your old cpu.

Waitin to see how well you like it b4 i make the switch. Thanx for the post.

Silver

As I said, I have no bench mark numbers, but I can tell you I can see and feel the difference.

One of the biggest things I notice is how fast ATS loads and ATS chat-famous for slow loads.

I tend to do many things at once is the main reason for my upgrade.

I went a head and load vista home premium on a seperate drive-otherwise, same hardware.

Let me say, it REALLY made a difference in the speed and overall liveability of the operating system.

I believe, Vista is multi-threaded +, however, my laster processor was dualcore.

This tells me, that vista has four plus threads at once, this explains the performance difference.

Now, if Vista can do 8 threads at once, it should do very well with the new 8 core processors coming out this year.


[edit on 1/31/2008 by mrmonsoon]

thx very much mrmonsoon
i also have been thinking about doing the same
i have the E6700 and thinking of the Q6600.

it looks like it would be worth the cash for gaming..

i will be watching your verdict

reply to post by chickenfeet



At this point, the benifits for gaming are limited.

It will give about 20% boost in standard gaming.

It's real help in gaming will come from massively multi-threaded games (massively mulitthreaded=4+ threads at once)

For example, Crysis loves quadcores.

Honestly, quadcores are made for massive multitaskers.
Let me give you an example often @ one time I am:

Downloading 3-4 thing
listening to music
chatting in ats chatroom
reading another page
doing realtime encoding of video's
(plus, of course, antivirus, firewall...)

The quad I use on one of my X38 machines encrypts and compresses data for transmission way, way, way faster than anything "PC" I've ever seen; blowfish on twofish on a proprietary algo. I don't use it on the net but I'm sure it can handle whatever net-stuff faster. Big, big astronomy photos (dozens at a time) open in a blink in IE7. Quads are now "Prime-time". Currently Proc 1 takes the most load but you can see it bring up the others in res mger when stressed.

I want another for for my regular "daily driver" PC 64-bits... some multi-thread windows apps are available and more every month. A friend who does graphics just loves the quad 45's for big stuff... it local renders like a demon. You can actually open a whole laser scan of a vehicle and work with it as one chunk instead of busting it up into chunks to work with like back when Opterons were "it". Times change.

Vic

I ranted enough, a friends mom just got the same setup as me.

She is upgrading from p4 1.8 gig computer.

Got my Q6600, massive improvement in Crysis and Microsoft Flight Simulator, where it is vastly superior on four cores than two. And damn it runs cool, idles at 39 degrees C, and 54 degrees underload, stock cooler. Planning on OC'ing it. You should do the same.

www.ocforums.com...


8800GT 512 ownz too.



[edit on 15/2/2008 by C0bzz]

if anyone is looking to unload their old c2d's i may be interested for the right price. =)