Intel 6th Gen i5 6500 good enough for gaming?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tikiman

Junior Member
Mar 9, 2016
8
0
6
#26
I'm looking at a computer sporting a similar processor, and have a similar question to the OP.

Can someone give me an idea of how much faster this is compared to an old C2Q Q6600.

I've been out of the game way too long :(
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,322
7
106
#27
I'm looking at a computer sporting a similar processor, and have a similar question to the OP.

Can someone give me an idea of how much faster this is compared to an old C2Q Q6600.

I've been out of the game way too long :(
Minimum 50%. Halve the power use.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,844
0
81
#28
I'm looking at a computer sporting a similar processor, and have a similar question to the OP.

Can someone give me an idea of how much faster this is compared to an old C2Q Q6600.

I've been out of the game way too long :(
Oh man, Q6600 was really ahead of its time. In fact that cpu would still be good for office applications and internet.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,226
0
76
#29
I have a i5 2500k and at stock speeds it drives my GTX 970 to it's maximum potential.
No, it doesn't. At least not in any 2015 or newer AAA game that is CPU-bound/CPU-heavy. Starting @ 4:20 of this Eurogamer.net video, a GTX 970 is paired with a 3.3 Ghz 2500k, a 4.6 Ghz 2500k, and a 4.5 Ghz Skylake i5. The overclocked 2500k is 8-12 FPS faster than the non-overclocked 2500k pretty close to 100% of the time, and the 4.5 Ghz Skylake is 10-15 FPS faster still than the overclocked 2500k. You may very well be satisfied with the performance of your 3.3 Ghz 2500k and GTX 970, but that CPU is nowhere near maxing out a GTX 970.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,226
0
76
#30
Oh man, Q6600 was really ahead of its time.
No doubt. The Q6600 was the 2500k of its generation...assuming you waited and got the G0 stepping, if you were wanting to overclock.
 
Jun 3, 2011
10,024
129
126
#31
I'm looking at a computer sporting a similar processor, and have a similar question to the OP.

Can someone give me an idea of how much faster this is compared to an old C2Q Q6600.

I've been out of the game way too long :(
LOL, they dont even begin to compare. the c2d will struggle at tasks the skylake will not even notice.
i ran for fun a 3DMark06 test (which i used to run on my E6600 - the dual core version of your chip - at 3.2Ghz). the CPU test finished in something like 10 seconds on my haswell 4670K; the skylake, locked at 3.6Ghz (mine runs at 4.2) will probably also run in 10 sec. a C2Q takes about 50 seconds to run the same test.

Core2 / Core2 refresh / i-series / i-refresh / sandy bridge / sandy refresh / haswell / haswell refresh / skylake.
that is how many generations you have missed.
 

wingman04

Senior member
May 12, 2016
393
0
51
#32
From all the reviews the skylake is 25% faster than sandy bridge, that is a lot for technology having a hard time going fast father in efficiency of the IPC.
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,078
0
91
#33
Yes i5 6500 is plenty good, at least you didn't go with the i5 6400 *cringe*.
 
Mar 11, 2008
66
0
66
#35
I went with the i5-6500 feeling I'd save the money now and down the road upgrade the processor if needed. Now if you can get a 6600/6700 or one of the K varaints for not much more go for it but to me the 6500 was priced right.
 

tikiman

Junior Member
Mar 9, 2016
8
0
6
#36
LOL, they dont even begin to compare. the c2d will struggle at tasks the skylake will not even notice.
i ran for fun a 3DMark06 test (which i used to run on my E6600 - the dual core version of your chip - at 3.2Ghz). the CPU test finished in something like 10 seconds on my haswell 4670K; the skylake, locked at 3.6Ghz (mine runs at 4.2) will probably also run in 10 sec. a C2Q takes about 50 seconds to run the same test.

Core2 / Core2 refresh / i-series / i-refresh / sandy bridge / sandy refresh / haswell / haswell refresh / skylake.
that is how many generations you have missed.
yes. It has been a long time. Last time i bought, a 680i SLI was considered a decent mobo... :D

the weirdest thing is that I've been on this site the entire time. I've read each uArch deep dive and followup review of product, yet none of the info has stuck in my brain. I'll chock it up to aging.

Either way, obviously anything I get now will be far faster. Win/Win
 

Broburger

Senior member
May 30, 2010
310
0
76
#37
Go for it. I'm using the i5-6500 right now and it's a damn good cpu plus it runs cool.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,400
7
91
#38
I went with the i5-6500 feeling I'd save the money now and down the road upgrade the processor if needed. Now if you can get a 6600/6700 or one of the K varaints for not much more go for it but to me the 6500 was priced right.
Sure its your money, but I can tell you that idea will almost never make any economic sense.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,443
201
126
#39
I went with the i5-6500 feeling I'd save the money now and down the road upgrade the processor if needed. Now if you can get a 6600/6700 or one of the K varaints for not much more go for it but to me the 6500 was priced right.
I doubt you will ever need to upgrade the 6500, though. It will probably be good for the life of the system, because the jump to an i7 will not be that big.

If I really needed to save money right now, and really needed a new system, I would probably build with an i3-6100, and then wait a year for 6700 or 6700K prices to move.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,844
0
81
#40
I doubt you will ever need to upgrade the 6500, though. It will probably be good for the life of the system, because the jump to an i7 will not be that big.

If I really needed to save money right now, and really needed a new system, I would probably build with an i3-6100, and then wait a year for 6700 or 6700K prices to move.
Honestly, CPU prices haven't been really moving anywhere since AMD got kicked to the butt and Intels are more expensive each generation. Replacing new i3 year later with 6700K cheaper by few bucks at best is huge time and money loss on its own.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,443
201
126
#41
Honestly, CPU prices haven't been really moving anywhere since AMD got kicked to the butt and Intels are more expensive each generation. Replacing new i3 year later with 6700K cheaper by few bucks at best is huge time and money loss on its own.
6700K has actually moved around quite a bit, though. It's been very high and nearly unavailable, and is now at MSRP or less and in stock everywhere.

And I specifically said in my scenario that saving money right now was the priority. :)

The i3 is ~$200 less than the i7 right now. That's a lot of money if you are trying to be thrifty and need a new system. :)
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,078
0
91
#42
Honestly, CPU prices haven't been really moving anywhere since AMD got kicked to the butt and Intels are more expensive each generation. Replacing new i3 year later with 6700K cheaper by few bucks at best is huge time and money loss on its own.
The i7 6700K has fluctuated up and down a lot in the past few months, ranging from $580 CDN down to $450 CDN (which is now). Same goes for the i5 6600K, and I actually got my i3 6100 at its lowest point ($140 CDN compared to it being $175 now).
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS