Sandybridge Benchmark vs. my old Q6600 *UPDATED*

[PlasmaBomb]

I don't find 4.4GHz hard to believe... I thought getting around 5.0GHz was going to be typical for these CPUs.

I never said that I didn't believe it, or that it was hard to believe.

Congrats scrubman :thumbsup:

 

[SZLiao214]

I'm upgrading from the same cpu that you have and am excited with those numbers. I was getting 3.6 out of my q6600. Can't wait to see 4.6 on my 2500k

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I think he's asking for a per-clock comparison, which I'd also be interested in seeing.

Actually I wasn't looking for any comparison. Its not hard to figure out that a overclocked 2600k would destroy a overclocked Q9660. I used the bench comparison long ago, both at stock speeds the 2600k wins every test. This thread didn't bring any new information IMHO, not trying to be rude or anything either.

 

[scrubman]

Actually I wasn't looking for any comparison. Its not hard to figure out that a overclocked 2600k would destroy a overclocked Q9660. I used the bench comparison long ago, both at stock speeds the 2600k wins every test. This thread didn't bring any new information IMHO, not trying to be rude or anything either.

I didnt take you for being rude. I felt more like you were not understanding my intent. This thread wasn't started to bring any new information to light. It was started for confirmation of peoples expectations of real world performance by a real world end user after upgrading to the SB.

I never said that I didn't believe it, or that it was hard to believe.

Congrats scrubman :thumbsup:

Thank you!!

 

[scrubman]

How much difference does the extra 4 gb of ram actually make? I'm piecing together a SB build and trying to decide between 4 or 8 gb. Got 8 gb currently but I rarely find myself with 30 programs open.

Absolutely get 8gig! Using Win7 on my Q6600 I had only 4gig and found my available memory somewhat lower than I would have liked. If you are building new you should definately go for 8 now. The extra $40 or $50 now will give you peace of mind down the road that is well worth it.

 

[scrubman]

4.6 was quite easy for me. I just don't have the balls to take it higher till i get confirmation on safe voltages

That's awesoome! I wonder if you ran Prime95 for an hour what your max temps would be. Prime95 pushed my temps higher than any other stress test and I didnt want to go much over 70c.

I bet its that sweet board and great cooler that keeps you good at 4.6. Possibly your chip too but it seems like they are all pretty consistent.

 

[Idontcare]

Actually I wasn't looking for any comparison. Its not hard to figure out that a overclocked 2600k would destroy a overclocked Q9660. I used the bench comparison long ago, both at stock speeds the 2600k wins every test. This thread didn't bring any new information IMHO, not trying to be rude or anything either.

Soooo...basically you just went on record as posting in here for no other purpose than to thread-crap and stir the pot?

Nice.

I didnt take you for being rude. I felt more like you were not understanding my intent. This thread wasn't started to bring any new information to light. It was started for confirmation of peoples expectations of real world performance by a real world end user after upgrading to the SB.



Thank you!!

As a Q6600 user I personally appreciated seeing some direct comparison numbers that speaks to the real-world upgrade potential. :thumbsup:

Gives me a better idea of what I am missing out on.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

That's awesoome! I wonder if you ran Prime95 for an hour what your max temps would be. Prime95 pushed my temps higher than any other stress test and I didnt want to go much over 70c.

IntelBurnTest and OCCT work the CPU harder than Prime95. Or at least pushes temps higher.

What are your Crysis settings?

 

[scrubman]

IntelBurnTest and OCCT work the CPU harder than Prime95. Or at least pushs temps higher.

What are your Crysis settings?

It shows the settings in the second line up from the bottom of the screen cap. I tried chaning the game setting and it had no effect on the setting of the bench app.

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: ambush @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0x (it is 64bit as well)

 

[Patrick Wolf]

That's a very nice bump in the minimum. And I doubt the 8GB had anything to do with it. Unless you're running a lot of apps in the background.

 

[Gillbot]

I don't find 4.4GHz hard to believe... I thought getting around 5.0GHz was going to be typical for these CPUs.

I'd say 4.4 to 4.8 is the average. I'm getting 4.4 and I'm at 1.28v. I just feel no need to go further, although I probably could if I wanted. I just have a pretty budget cooler so don't want to raise the temps too much.

Here we go with the hype again.... Q66 GO and 920 DO hpye....

NEVER expect a certain overclock. I'd be willing to bet there are more who don't hit what they expect and don't post as opposed to those who hit a decent clock and have to brag. Especially with the higher numbers.

 

[dehemke]

Q6600 G0 deserved all the hype it got. That chip was the price/performer sweet spot champ for a long time.

 

[Idontcare]

Q6600 G0 deserved all the hype it got. That chip was the price/performer sweet spot champ for a long time.

He means the "everyone can get 3.6GHz teh eazy with a G0" rhetoric.

3.3-3.4GHz was the more typical, folks came to consider themselves lucky if they got 3.6GHz, and a few (very few) folks could squeeze upwards of 4GHz out of their golden samples.

But there were a lot of irresponsible misrepresentation of just how well the chips overclocked and expectations were not being set in accordance with reality.

Sandy is kinda headed towards that with all the "4.5GHz is a gimme! practically everyone is hitting 4.8GHz" hype.

Its like this seemingly for every CPU release, the >2-sigma tail gets overstated as representing the average of the parent population.

 

[dehemke]

He means the "everyone can get 3.6GHz teh eazy with a G0" rhetoric.

3.3-3.4GHz was the more typical, folks came to consider themselves lucky if they got 3.6GHz, and a few (very few) folks could squeeze upwards of 4GHz out of their golden samples.

But there were a lot of irresponsible misrepresentation of just how well the chips overclocked and expectations were not being set in accordance with reality.

Sandy is kinda headed towards that with all the "4.5GHz is a gimme! practically everyone is hitting 4.8GHz" hype.

Its like this seemingly for every CPU release, the >2-sigma tail gets overstated as representing the average of the parent population.

Ok, that's a fair argument, I misunderstood his point.

 

[Castiel]

He means the "everyone can get 3.6GHz teh eazy with a G0" rhetoric.

3.3-3.4GHz was the more typical, folks came to consider themselves lucky if they got 3.6GHz, and a few (very few) folks could squeeze upwards of 4GHz out of their golden samples.

But there were a lot of irresponsible misrepresentation of just how well the chips overclocked and expectations were not being set in accordance with reality.

Sandy is kinda headed towards that with all the "4.5GHz is a gimme! practically everyone is hitting 4.8GHz" hype.

Its like this seemingly for every CPU release, the >2-sigma tail gets overstated as representing the average of the parent population.

Problem with all of the SB owners on this forum have been the "Ohh don't go over 1.38v or your processor will automatically die" hype. Once we all saw that we all stopped going for max overclock. Right now i'm testing 4.8Ghz at 1.35v and i WANT.. no no i NEED 5Ghz at 1.38v but kinda hesitant.

Give it a month and we'll all start going higher when no one kills there chip.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Here we go with the hype again.... Q66 GO and 920 DO hpye....

NEVER expect a certain overclock. I'd be willing to bet there are more who don't hit what they expect and don't post as opposed to those who hit a decent clock and have to brag. Especially with the higher numbers.

I disagree. If anything, many of us are holding back because of reports about overvolting etc or the fact that 4.4 is fast enough and we can't be bothered going further.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone here who has failed to get 4.4. I maintain the average OC for these chips will be somewhere within the 4.4 to 4.8 range. Sure, some may be less and some more, but most will be within that range.

i'd consider it pretty damn unlucky to have one that can't do 4.4. That's not hype or bragging, just an observation.

 

[scrubman]

That's a very nice bump in the minimum. And I doubt the 8GB had anything to do with it. Unless you're running a lot of apps in the background.

Great point!! I believe that is a 51.9% performance improvement on minimum frame rate.

 

[Markfw]

He means the "everyone can get 3.6GHz teh eazy with a G0" rhetoric.

3.3-3.4GHz was the more typical, folks came to consider themselves lucky if they got 3.6GHz, and a few (very few) folks could squeeze upwards of 4GHz out of their golden samples.

But there were a lot of irresponsible misrepresentation of just how well the chips overclocked and expectations were not being set in accordance with reality.

Sandy is kinda headed towards that with all the "4.5GHz is a gimme! practically everyone is hitting 4.8GHz" hype.

Its like this seemingly for every CPU release, the >2-sigma tail gets overstated as representing the average of the parent population.

So, as the previous owner of 5 Q6600's (I still have 3), I can verify. Once did 3.6, but was not totally stable for days on end. Now down to 3.4. The others were 3510,3440,3320 and now they are all down to under 3.2 (stability erodes)

As for SB, I can believe that those with better (costlier) motherboards can get 4.6, or maybe even 4.8 on high voltage, but from my experience, the average OC seems to be 4.2 to 4.4. A couple of the $300-350 motherboards are getting 4.6.

 

[scrubman]

Problem with all of the SB owners on this forum have been the "Ohh don't go over 1.38v or your processor will automatically die" hype. Once we all saw that we all stopped going for max overclock. Right now i'm testing 4.8Ghz at 1.35v and i WANT.. no no i NEED 5Ghz at 1.38v but kinda hesitant.

Give it a month and we'll all start going higher when no one kills there chip.

I feel ya!! I bumped up to 1.42vcore last night and overclocked my RAM and ran at 4.8GHz fine. It was a little hot under that heatsink tho after completing 5 rounds of the IntelBurnTest. 92c max temp and no burned out chip! I would consider keeping it there if/when I figure out how to make the vcore go down low while surfing the web at 1.6GHz.

 

[Idontcare]

So, as the previous owner of 5 Q6600's (I still have 3), I can verify. Once did 3.6, but was not totally stable for days on end. Now down to 3.4. The others were 3510,3440,3320 and now they are all down to under 3.2 (stability erodes)

As for SB, I can believe that those with better (costlier) motherboards can get 4.6, or maybe even 4.8 on high voltage, but from my experience, the average OC seems to be 4.2 to 4.4. A couple of the $300-350 motherboards are getting 4.6.

You had 5? Coincidence, 5 here as well. Still have 4. They all did 3.3GHz, a few (2 or 3, can't remember) did 3.4 and none of them would do 3.6GHz small FFT stable for me.

That was with Gigabyte DS3L's, lapped IHS and lapped Tuniq Towers. Still though, 2.4 -> 3.3Ghz was NOT a shabby OC.

I've still got my VapoLS here, mothballed in the basement, seriously considering getting me a 2600K and putting it under vaporphase. It took my B3 QX6700 to 4GHz, wonder if I could get a 2600K to 5.5GHz.

 

[VirtualLarry]

You had 5? Coincidence, 5 here as well. Still have 4. They all did 3.3GHz, a few (2 or 3, can't remember) did 3.4 and none of them would do 3.6GHz small FFT stable for me.

That was with Gigabyte DS3L's, lapped IHS and lapped Tuniq Towers. Still though, 2.4 -> 3.3Ghz was NOT a shabby OC.

I've still got my VapoLS here, mothballed in the basement, seriously considering getting me a 2600K and putting it under vaporphase. It took my B3 QX6700 to 4GHz, wonder if I could get a 2600K to 5.5GHz.

Go for it! You can probably beat Aigo's overclock too!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

You had 5? Coincidence, 5 here as well. Still have 4. They all did 3.3GHz, a few (2 or 3, can't remember) did 3.4 and none of them would do 3.6GHz small FFT stable for me.

That was with Gigabyte DS3L's, lapped IHS and lapped Tuniq Towers. Still though, 2.4 -> 3.3Ghz was NOT a shabby OC.

I've still got my VapoLS here, mothballed in the basement, seriously considering getting me a 2600K and putting it under vaporphase. It took my B3 QX6700 to 4GHz, wonder if I could get a 2600K to 5.5GHz.

Be sure to post if you do...

5.2GHz @ 1.5V

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajZi-JAFXA&feature=related

Granted it's not a huge stability test and probably a golden sample

 

[smakme7757]

I compared my old Q9450 @ 3.6Ghz to my new i7-2600k @ stock using AIDA64 (everest ultimate edition). here are the HTML printouts. They are in norwegian, but you should be able to understand it anway.

Q9450 @ 3.6Ghz

i7-2600K @ Stock (3.4Ghz)

Just scroll down to the benchmarks and you can see the i7-2600k is a massive upgrade!

 

[Zap]

i'd consider it pretty damn unlucky to have one that can't do 4.4. That's not hype or bragging, just an observation.

I think it really comes down to:
1) What motherboard?
2) What voltage?
3) Are we only hearing about the successes?

Here's something that happened to me, BITD. From the heyday of socket 939 to the decline, I was purchasing 939 CPUs like crazy! Besides any number of 3400+, 3500+, 3700+, 4000+, FX-55, I also went through several Opteron 144 chips.

One of those chips would barely overclock.

Now, when anyone who was into overclocking thinks of the Opteron 144, they think of a 1MB cache 1.8GHz CPU that was a "guaranteed" 2.7GHz. Indeed two of mine did more like 2.9GHz.

The third one could barely go over 2GHz.

Yep, got a serious dud. 2.2GHz was the limit for even booting into Windows, and 2-2.1GHz was probably the limit of stability.

I posted about my experiences here, and the replies, shall we say, were less than kind. I got comments ranging from "you're using the wrong motherboard" to "you're using the wrong BIOS settings" to "you don't know what you're doing" to "you are an idiot."

I was using the same RAM, PSU, cooling and motherboard that I was testing the other two Opty 144, since I had them all at the same time. I think the board may have been a DFI Lanparty Expert. Not a slouch of a board, and the EXACT SAME SETUP took the other two chips to 2.9GHz.

That experienced was probably instrumental in turning me into a bitter man. The comments were certainly instrumental in turning me into a "lazy" overclocker (doing "safe and easy" overclocks for just a free boost, not going for highest/edge of stability).

 

[BladeVenom]

Its like this seemingly for every CPU release, the >2-sigma tail gets overstated as representing the average of the parent population.

+1, Everyone likes to brag when they hit a high overclock. Rarely do you hear them come back and admit it wasn't stable in the long term.