Q6600 vs Q9550 OC'd

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

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,856
81
126
#26
If there had been an i3k version I probably would have jumped on that and OC it all the way, a friend has a 2500k and he can reach 4.5 on stock cooler and stock volts completely stable
I totally agree, being able to OC the i3 would change a lot, and now with some competition from AMD (FX 6300 looks pretty good compared to what Intel can offer on the sub $180 segment) and a new platform (lga 1150) this might be a reality again, there has been some reports that Haswell will have some BLCK overclock headroom, which would be great for the lower end locked parts I think.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
625
126
116
#27
The G0 stepping of the 6600 easily reached 3.4-3.6G with minimal volting. If it's a G0, I'd save the $35 since both are old tech and the performance difference between the 2 will doubtfully be noticed.
 

Ketchup

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2002
14,482
32
106
#28
My last CPU was a GO 6600 that would reach 3.6. It was a furnace, but fast. Very happy with it.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,856
81
126
#29
The G0 stepping of the 6600 easily reached 3.4-3.6G with minimal volting. If it's a G0, I'd save the $35 since both are old tech and the performance difference between the 2 will doubtfully be noticed.
easily?
my G0 would hit easily 3GHz, but for more than that needed good cooling and overvolt, and and at that stage my cheap MB couldn't handle the power usage anymore.... also the q9550 can go significantly higher, or use a lot less power for the same clock.

but about the rest, you are probably right

this can be useful


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...eb-vs-intel)&p=3552100&viewfull=1#post3552100
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,289
6
106
#30
The G0 stepping of the 6600 easily reached 3.4-3.6G with minimal volting. If it's a G0, I'd save the $35 since both are old tech and the performance difference between the 2 will doubtfully be noticed.
I've built at least 4 G0 machines. 3 of them wouldn't hit 3.6 GHz at all, and the one that did, didn't do it easily at all.
 

rbk123

Senior member
Aug 22, 2006
625
126
116
#31
Yes easily. A search on G0 6600 on this site, or google it, and you'll see the easy majority hit 3.4 to 3.6. G0 was the stepping to get. I still run mine at 3.6 and it's now 4.5 years old. As for needing "good cooling" - most were using something inexpensive like the Hyper 212+. No one is silly enough to claim 3.4-3.6 with the stock cooler.
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,289
6
106
#32
I don't need to search, I was around when G0s were all the craze, and you're wrong.
 
Aug 22, 2012
98
0
0
#33
i was running a Q9550 @ 3.5 ghz @ 1.12 vcore before i upgraded to a 2500k it was good for most games but bf3 required more power
 
Oct 25, 2012
44
0
61
#34
i was running a Q9550 @ 3.5 ghz @ 1.12 vcore before i upgraded to a 2500k it was good for most games but bf3 required more power
So for you, the q9550 wasn't enough to run bf3 at your resolution?
 

Triglet

Senior member
Nov 22, 2007
260
0
76
#35
I'm running the rig in my sig and that chip has been a champ. In BF3 @ 19x12, Ultra, 4x MSAA, 16 AF I'm getting similar frames as what's shown in Anand's Bench (around 60-70). In game, I'm around 75-80% CPU usage when the card is pegged at 99%.

If you can get it overclocked high enough it's a good chip. Sure I'm probably losing some compared to the new platforms but whatever, not worth the cost to upgrade as of yet.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#36
I upgraded from a Q6600 @ 3.0 to an overclocked i5 and it was night and day in a few games - namely Guild Wars 2 and Starcraft 2. Others showed no improvement.

I'd say 775 chips still have a bit of life left in them but they're showing their age.
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,289
6
106
#37
So for you, the q9550 wasn't enough to run bf3 at your resolution?
Resolution has little to do with CPU. "enough" is a very relative term also. You can certainly get by on a 9550 and BF3, but if you want to maintain at or near 60fps on a full 64 player server, it's not going to happen on a Core 2 Quad. If 45 fps is good enough then you should be fine with a Core 2 Quad clocked at >3GHz
 
Oct 25, 2012
44
0
61
#38
Well i plan to play at 1080p and the 7850 hits arround 45 ish there anyways so i guess this is a good match for cpu and gpu?
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#39
Well i plan to play at 1080p and the 7850 hits arround 45 ish there anyways so i guess this is a good match for cpu and gpu?
You can check your GPU utilization with programs like GPU-Z. When it drops below 100% you're bottlenecked by something else.
 

lowrider69

Senior member
Aug 26, 2004
422
0
0
#40
Get the Q9550. I went from a e6420 to a Q9550 about six months ago and I don't regret it. I was going to do a total system overhaul, new board, CPU, etc..and I decided that it wouldn't benefit me for what I do. I run VMs and do some gaming @ 1920 x 1080 on 24" monitor and I have no complaints. And I only have a GTX 550ti that I bought for $100 or something. I don't play games that often but when I do it's very smooth.
 
Nov 20, 2012
40
0
0
#41
In my enperience, overclocking on the q6600 works very wel. I've mine running on 3.23 Ghz and it''s undervolted.
Either i got very lucky a couple of years ago, or i got a great board. (its a dd3 board btw).

Still.. if u have the money, go for a newer socket with an I5 for example.
(because my q6600 is still bottlenecking my graphics card a bit) this is purely explainable due the difference in age/ generation diff between cpu and gpu.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY