E6320 => Q6600 or E8400? Or...

[fffblackmage]

At least in The Saboteur, I'm noticing my cpu limiting framerates. I know this is the case since I notice a huge improvement setting the cpu freq. at 3.0GHz over 2.33GHz. Even then, I think there's room for improvement, except my E6320 won't clock any higher due to the mobo. I'm also considering upgrading my gfx card to a 5830/5850, so I'm expecting my computer to become more cpu limited in many of the games I play.

Now, here's my dilemma. My 650i mobo doesn't support 45nm quad cores (damn you nVidia!). I'm stuck with either upgrading to something like a Q6600, or I can upgrade to a faster dual core (E8400). Both are around the same price range on ebay. Of course, I plan on OCing.

I'm already leaning towards the Q6600 for quad core awesomeness. Actually, upgrading from a dual core to another dual core just doesn't sound right anyways. Well, it seems the Q6600 makes the most sense, but I wanted to hear some opinions before committing to buy.

Hmm, or maybe it's better to move to an PhII X4 or Core i7?

Gah, I want better performance, yet I don't want to spend too much either.

EDIT: New update!

 

[RussianSensation]

1. Double check 100% that your mobo does not support any 45nm Quad Cores. Asus P5N-E SLI with the same 650i chipset for example officially supports Q9505 with the latest bios:
http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-ASUS/P5N-E_SLI.html

Users have also reported successfully booting with Q9550 but only 6mb of the 12mb available cash is available due to that particular motherboard's limitations.

2. Obviously bang for the buck a used Q6600/6700 @ 3.4-3.6ghz would be a great addition to your system over getting a new motherboard, cpu and ram (unless you can sell your current cpu+mobo+ram / +videocard as a bundle to someone and use that towards the upgrade )

Unless you can get decent value for your parts, then you can just get a quad and do a full system overhaul when 32nm quad cores (bulldozer/sandy bridge) arrive.

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm tough position. I wouldn't put the money into a quad for that old board. I would get a mobo that takes DDR2 and a Phenom 2 processor and overclock it to 3.7-8 (C3 Ph2's will do this, and it will be faster clock/clock than the q6600). Sell the old mobo and CPU to fund this. You'll be able to get a mobo with Crossfire support, too, for cheap, which means you'd be able to get that 5830 and another one later.

 

[RussianSensation]

Soccerball,

A Q6600 @ 3.4-3.6 will easily keep up with Phenom 2 @ 3.7-3.8. Why waste all that $ to get almost the same performance? Phenom 2 performs much closer to Core 2 Quad architecture than to Core i7.

 

[TJCS]

Q6600+1 Benchies

 

[fffblackmage]

I would get a mobo that takes DDR2 and a Phenom 2 processor and overclock it to 3.7-8 (C3 Ph2's will do this, and it will be faster clock/clock than the q6600.

A Q6600 @ 3.4-3.6 will easily keep up with Phenom 2 @ 3.7-3.8. Why waste all that $ to get almost the same performance? Phenom 2 performs much closer to Core 2 Quad architecture than to Core i7.

I was looking at some reviews on the C2 revision of the PhII X4 920/940, and, despite the 400/600MHz advantage, they're really close in performance to the Q6600. I can't imagine the C3 revision would make a significant enough difference.

I'm a bit surprised the Q6600 can still easily keep up. Also, G0 stepping is what I should be looking for, but how bad would it be if I got the B3 instead?

 

[soccerballtux]

Hm maybe it _would_ just be better to get a q6600, if he can get one that'll go to 3.4 for cheap. That is an old mobo though...

 

[soccerballtux]

I was looking at some reviews on the C2 revision of the PhII X4 920/940, and, despite the 400/600MHz advantage, they're really close in performance to the Q6600. I can't imagine the C3 revision would make a significant enough difference.

I'm a bit surprised the Q6600 can still easily keep up. Also, G0 stepping is what I should be looking for, but how bad would it be if I got the B3 instead?

C3 is not about performance, it's about being able to get to 3.8Ghz easily.
Most reviews don't overclock the CPU-NB either, which causes the Ph2 to gain about 10-15% performance going from 2.0 to 2.6Ghz on the L3. When it's 3.8Ghz on a Ph2 with the L3 at 2.6Ghz, vs 3.4Ghz q6600, the Ph2 really seems to take the lead.

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

If it were me in your position and keeping the current motherboard was a must, I'd get an E8400 as opposed to a Q6600. I would rather move to the efficiency of 45nm if given an inexpensive opportunity. Unless there's virtualization going on, or an excessive number of processes running to require 4 cores be utilized when gaming or performing some other centric task, I personally don't see a need for 4 cores.

Beyond that debate... why do you think you need a cpu upgrade before a new graphics card? That's your best move. You know you have compatability with a newer series card, you know you can take it with you to a new system, and you know you can get an upgrade that outpowers your current gpu for a relatively inexpensive price.

Pointing to one game were a quad is recommended is weak. Pointing to that game is weakerer, given initial incompatability with ati graphics and the suggestion to not run the game under win7.

I change my mind- If I were you, I would get a new graphics card. That's it. Because if it doesn't get the job done- you'll be upgrading to a newer arcitecture. I'd be willing to bet if you got a newer cpu (iX or Phenom) you'd see you're current graphics paird with it as deficient and within 6 months upgrade the graphics anyway. Either way, you end up at the same place... except starting with graphics update leaves a cpu update as a backup plan, as opposed to the graphics update after a cpu change being complimentary.

 

[soccerballtux]

We've all moved to Quad because multithreading is the future.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

No, your motherboard would cry with a Q6600 OCing would probably be worse. I think its chipset limited... someone please correct me if i am wrong; cheers

 

[RussianSensation]

Sorry, DP.

 

[RussianSensation]

No, your motherboard would cry with a Q6600 OCing would probably be worse. I think its chipset limited... someone please correct me if i am wrong; cheers

Ya you are way off. Q6600 has a very high multiplier of 9x, just like the E8400. That means if you are comparing E8400 which runs at stock frequency of 333 FSB, that would give you 333 x 9 = 3.0ghz on the Q6600, the same speed as the E8400, but with 2 extra cores. At just 378 FSB you are already at 3.4ghz. There is no need to go above 400 FSB for Q6600 which is where most motherboards begin to fail.

I would expect that with more current/demanding games, Q6600 at the same frequency as the E8400 (i.e., once you get above 3.0ghz+) will put the Core 2 Duo into the house of pain:

1) GTA4 - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ark-review-with-13-processors/Reviews/?page=2
E8500 @ 3.6ghz = min 24 / avg 29
Q6600 @ 2.4ghz = min 23 / avg 28.8
C2Q @ 3.6ghz = min 31 / avg 38

2) Dragon Age - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/
E8400 @ 3.6ghz = min 28 / avg 44
Q6600 @ 2.4ghz = min 31 / avg 49.8
Q6600 @ 3.6ghz = min 46 / avg 72.3

3) Resident Evil 5 - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...nom-strong-Update-Lynnfield-results/Practice/
C2D @ 2.4ghz = min 34/ avg 41.9
C2Q @ 2.4ghz = min 53 / avg 59
E8400 @ 3.0ghz = min 51 / avg 58.7
C2Q @ 3.0ghz = min 69 / avg 76.7

Also, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/resident-evil-5,2409-11.html
C2D @ 2.4ghz = 38.5
C2Q @ 2.4ghz = 69.7

Obviously most games don't scale this way. But why would you upgrade from a dual core @ 3.0ghz to a dual core that will max out at 4.0ghz (E8400)? That's only 25% performance boost.

Just to weigh in, an argument that Q6600 is hot gets thrown around a lot. My Q6600 @ 3.4ghz was getting 52-56*C at load on the Tuniq Tower 120 (now probably top 20 best CPU air coolers, if that). Compare that to my Core i7 860 @ 3.9ghz which is at 68-72*C at load on the Megahalems. Core i7s are very efficient but once you exceed 3.8ghz, you can kiss this theory goodbye:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-core-i7,2268-10.html
Core i7 3.8ghz = 310 watts (total system power)
Core i7 4.0ghz = 417 watts (!!!)

Q6600 @ 3.4ghz will be nowhere near that (even though it's still a hot chip).

If you can get a Q6600 for $100 and sell your current processor for $30, I don't think you can beat the value proposition.

 

[fffblackmage]

No, your motherboard would cry with a Q6600 OCing would probably be worse. I think its chipset limited.

I'm rather worried my mobo's cpu voltage regulators will give out first before the 650i chipset starts limiting my OC. My 650i's max FSB overclock falls somewhere just short of 1800 MHz, more than enough to get the Q6600 past 3.6 GHz. But at that point, heat is the problem....

If you can get a Q6600 for $100 and sell your current processor for $30, I don't think you can beat the value proposition.

This.

Moving to PhII is more troublesome and much more expensive when a used Q6600 can net me similar gains.

I'm really not even considering the E8400 because dual core to another dual core doesn't seem like a worthwhile upgrade, especially when I see games that are now benefiting from quad cores.

If I can get an Q6600 under $120, I think I'm going to go for it, otherwise, I'll be sticking with my E6320 for another year or two before doing a complete overhaul. Hopefully, USB 3.0 and SATA 3 are common by then....


Also, thanks to everyone for contributing. Even if I'm not going with PhII or whatever, it's still good to have looked at alternatives. Thank you.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Q6600 for sure.

Seeing old benchmarks of the Phenom 1 9550 being out the E8400 is some tasks, you know that getting a much faster quad is the way to go. Don't go form a dual core to a faster dual core. A few years from now you will be kicking yourself.

 

[TJCS]

Core i7 4.0ghz = 417 watts (!!!)

That is a lot of power...
​

 

[fffblackmage]

:\
Q6600s are selling around $140 on ebay. I guess I'll just have to be patient to find one closer to $100. I guess this works out though. Comdrpopnfresh's suggestion on upgrading the gfx card first is reasonable. If that does work out well enough, I could live with my E6320 a while longer.

I think the biggest reason for upgrading my cpu is getting something new to play with. Must resist.... Only 10 more days until the 5830 comes out and maybe I can just forget about the Q6600.

 

[tweakboy]

Go for the future investment, dual for now, quad for later. thx

 

[spdfreak]

I have a Q6600 on a MSI P6N SLI board and you should be able to just set it to the 1333 fsb option and have an easy 3.0 OC. On mine, it needs more voltage to get above that and heat starts to go up exponentially. But that is a really nice set-up for a 100.00 chip. The MSI 650i boards "supposedly" can use the 45nm chips if they are rev 4 boards- which mine is, but I haven't tried it. Common experience is that the chip will work, but they do not OC at all. So you might want to stay with a Q6600 or 6700 if you can find one cheap enough. I was going to upgrade to an i7 but just couldn't justify the expense. For 99% of what I do, I would never see or feel the difference. For me, a SSD boot drive would be a better use of my money.

 

[adlep]

I have a Q6600 on a MSI P6N SLI board and you should be able to just set it to the 1333 fsb option and have an easy 3.0 OC. On mine, it needs more voltage to get above that and heat starts to go up exponentially. But that is a really nice set-up for a 100.00 chip. The MSI 650i boards "supposedly" can use the 45nm chips if they are rev 4 boards- which mine is, but I haven't tried it. Common experience is that the chip will work, but they do not OC at all. So you might want to stay with a Q6600 or 6700 if you can find one cheap enough. I was going to upgrade to an i7 but just couldn't justify the expense. For 99% of what I do, I would never see or feel the difference. For me, a SSD boot drive would be a better use of my money.

Have the same board (rev 4) and I am typing it on a E7200 Wolfy @3.17GHz
Make sure to Live Update the bios using MSI's utility. I will keep this board for at least one more year. With 3.17GHZ and 8GB of RAM Win 7 is silky smooth and all the games still run fine on high settings (with GTX 2260).

 

[lopri]

Get an E8400 if the board supports it. nForce and a quad don't get along very well when overclocked. Especially with 4 sticks of memory and high-end GPUs. Max 333FSB if you want to keep the board longer than 6 months. For duals, 400~450FSB seems OK for a long term.

 

[spinejam]

fwiw, the q6600's have lived an incredible run to date.

my daughter has my old q6600@3.6Ghz and it's been running as such for 2+ years now w/o a hiccup. she loves the multi-tasking capabilities of q6600 and refuses to use her core2duo laptop for anything but email / surfing b/c she thinks it's a dog!

my wife has an AMD x2 550BE@ 3800mhz (quadcore-converted), and it runs similar to the q6600 @3.6 -- just a tad cooler though.

that's my 2¢

 

[fffblackmage]

Get an E8400 if the board supports it. nForce and a quad don't get along very well when overclocked. Especially with 4 sticks of memory and high-end GPUs. Max 333FSB if you want to keep the board longer than 6 months. For duals, 400~450FSB seems OK for a long term.

I don't get this. I hear stuff about how cruddy the nVidia chipsets are, especially in combination with quad cores. Is there some truth to this, or is this just some weird superstition? I've tried googling, but I just keep finding more posts in which people keep stating the same thing.

Also, how is 400MHz+ fsb ok for dual cores, but not for quad cores? Obviously, the quad core will consume more power than a dual core, so is that what might cause a mobo to die sooner (keeping fsb the same, but 2 vs 4 cores)?

Edit: Read a couple of anandtech article on 650i chipset + overclocking quad core. In both articles, they got a quad core clocked at 3.6GHz. I got the impression they got better results on other mobos with different chipsets, but I can't say 3.6GHz on a quad core is a poor result.

 

[aclim]

I have heard all kinds of bad things about nvidia chipsets and q6600s OCing. If you do go with a q6600, dont expect to get a crazy OC on that board. You could try that and see what you can get out of it, and if all else fails just try and pickup another board that better suits it for cheap on the fs forums or ebay

 

[lopri]

I don't get this. I hear stuff about how cruddy the nVidia chipsets are, especially in combination with quad cores. Is there some truth to this, or is this just some weird superstition? I've tried googling, but I just keep finding more posts in which people keep stating the same thing.

I haven't used a 650i board, but have used a few 680i, 780i, and 750i boards. The later models/revisions fare better, but I still felt dual-cores were much better fit for these boards.

Also, how is 400MHz+ fsb ok for dual cores, but not for quad cores? Obviously, the quad core will consume more power than a dual core, so is that what might cause a mobo to die sooner (keeping fsb the same, but 2 vs 4 cores)?

Yes. Plus heat and heavier data transfer which stresses the board. Some boards suffered data corruption issues which were exacerbated by higher FSB and more cores.

Edit: Read a couple of anandtech article on 650i chipset + overclocking quad core. In both articles, they got a quad core clocked at 3.6GHz. I got the impression they got better results on other mobos with different chipsets, but I can't say 3.6GHz on a quad core is a poor result.

How many memory sticks did the reviews use? And while I consider AT's motherboard reviews some of the best, perhaps it is not reasonable to expect them to test a board for an extended period of time.. And that's when this forum comes to rescue.