Would upgrading to a C2Q Q6700 still be competitive in the long run?

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
In all of those gaming tests, there is not a noticeable difference in performance between the PhII and the Q6600 OC'd. They are also testing at 1280x1024 with medium quality settings, meaning there will be even less of a difference (I don't know how there can be less than a no difference, though) in a real world situation.

I also hold no weight in the synthetic Sysmark scores.

You also need to learn the use of the word "dominating", because in the rendering list you so gladly made this statement the Phenom II is faster in Cinebench R10 and the Q6600 is a whopping 0.83 fps (8%) faster. I do not consider 8% for this one test a domination. Over 25% would be domination.

That's true, and admittedly some of my statement earlier was hyperbole, due to the frustration of seeing the latest PhII lose to ~3 year old Q6600 I put my $ where my mouth is, and bought the PhII to support AMD and have some fun with a different architecture, but it's pretty underwhelming. I think the X3 > X4 unlock + OC is a fantastic value, but other than that, have a hard time recommending anyone else do what I did. I probably got the worst combo possible, the PhII 800 series has almost all of the expense of the Black Editions, but with the headaches of FSB overclocking due to the locked multi, and the insult to injury : 4MB cache, quite decent for a dual, but borderline bleh for a quad.

If the Q6600 had come out at the same time as my PhII 805, I'd say they're overall quite competitive, but being that it's been years, it is a bit deflating. Imagine if ATI launched a GPU in Jan of '07 that Nvidia was still struggling to equal, that's pretty much unthinkable.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Uh.... you must not pay attention to the CPU market often, then, and it doesn't compare with the GPU market.

To expect a processor to be better simply because it's newer is quite silly. There are new Intel processors which are slower than the Q6600. There are even cases where a Q6600 would outperform the i7 (when running at different frequencies), and the Q6600 will definitely be faster than some of the Core i5/i3 processors to be released.

And to base all of your claims simply because you didn't do the research and got the "crippled" 800 series PhII is also silly. To be dissappointed with a 1GHz overclock is also silly. Your use of hyperbole is also silly, and I find it maddening and frustrating.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't base all of my claims because I didn't do the research, I base my claims on real benchmarks like the Xbit link above. Fact : the Q6600 wins the dominant majority of the benchmarks, even though there is a gap in clockspeed. This is against the superior PhII 900 series.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed that a new Quad core getting outperformed by a relatively ancient processor.

The GPU market is similar to the CPU market enough for this to be a really bizarre situation. Tell me one other time in history where a nearly three year old processor was still able to be highly competitive to new upper-tier processors.

In 1996, the top processor was something like the 200MMX, and by 1999, we had P3 600 and the first K7s. Three years later in '02, you went from ~600mhz CPUs to 2ghz P4s and the legendary Athlon XP. Three years after that we went from single-core ~2000+/2Ghz range into mid-3ghz Pentium Ds, and the superior Athlon 64 X2s. Three years is a long time in the CPU world, and normal circumstances are ones where even midrange CPUs are dominantly faster than a bleeding-edge three-year-old setup.

I think it may just be that the Q6600 is an axe-murdering exception to the general rules, and you're absolutely right, it's also better (comparing OC to OC of course) to the Q8000 series AFAIK, and is still competitive in most things with pretty much anything you can throw at it other than a highly overclocked i7. It's a joker in the deck to a great degree.

I got the 800 series because I didn't want to take the chance of not being able to unlock an X3, and I couldn't afford the 900 series. Fry's had the well-reviewed MA790XUD4P w/OEM PhII 805 for $250, and it seemed a decent buy at the time. It's not the worst case scenario, but admittedly it was a mistake for me. There really isn't a lot of info out there on the 800 series, and next to nothing on the 805 in particular. It overclocks great, but is beat by C2Q's of sometimes dramatically lower clocks.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I don't base all of my claims because I didn't do the research, I base my claims on real benchmarks like the Xbit link above. Fact : the Q6600 wins the dominant majority of the benchmarks, even though there is a gap in clockspeed. This is against the superior PhII 900 series.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed that a new Quad core getting outperformed by a relatively ancient processor.

The GPU market is similar to the CPU market enough for this to be a really bizarre situation. Tell me one other time in history where a nearly three year old processor was still able to be highly competitive to new upper-tier processors.

In 1996, the top processor was something like the 200MMX, and by 1999, we had P3 600 and the first K7s. Three years later in '02, you went from ~600mhz CPUs to 2ghz P4s and the legendary Athlon XP. Three years after that we went from single-core ~2000+/2Ghz range into mid-3ghz Pentium Ds, and the superior Athlon 64 X2s. Three years is a long time in the CPU world, and normal circumstances are ones where even midrange CPUs are dominantly faster than a bleeding-edge three-year-old setup.

I think it may just be that the Q6600 is an axe-murdering exception to the general rules, and you're absolutely right, it's also better (comparing OC to OC of course) to the Q8000 series AFAIK, and is still competitive in most things with pretty much anything you can throw at it other than a highly overclocked i7. It's a joker in the deck to a great degree.

I got the 800 series because I didn't want to take the chance of not being able to unlock an X3, and I couldn't afford the 900 series. Fry's had the well-reviewed MA790XUD4P w/OEM PhII 805 for $250, and it seemed a decent buy at the time. It's not the worst case scenario, but admittedly it was a mistake for me. There really isn't a lot of info out there on the 800 series, and next to nothing on the 805 in particular. It overclocks great, but is beat by C2Q's of sometimes dramatically lower clocks.

Well, the Q6600 and (still available) Q6700 are good chips -- no doubt about it, especially in the G0-stepping (exclusive to the Q6700). But they're made to the FSB-1066 spec. Getting them to 1333 is fine, and you can get them to go higher.

But if the motherboard is "compatible" and Yorkfield-capable, a Q9650 or even Q9550 should leave the Q6600 in the dust. They should leave the Q6700 in the dust, too.

EDIT: But I just looked at Lateralusxxx's motherboard. P5W DH? That was a board that appeared before Conroe, or anticipated the Conroe release. I'm wondering of it's capable of running a Yorkie, and I'm skeptical there. So I see how he might be contemplating a Kenstfield quad.

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah, P5W-DH is a 975X board IIRC. Not sure how high the FSB wall is on that. I think the 45nm chips will post in that board, but for some reason there is stability problem.

The Q6600/6700 are I think the only chips to ever reside near the top of the heap for about three years (with OC of course). That's just insane.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yeah, P5W-DH is a 975X board IIRC. Not sure how high the FSB wall is on that. I think the 45nm chips will post in that board, but for some reason there is stability problem.

The Q6600/6700 are I think the only chips to ever reside near the top of the heap for about three years (with OC of course). That's just insane.

Not really. Keep in mind, I was always on the software side of the tech equation when I was working. I maintained my "edge" then. I kept up. Nobody could match me. Now -- I've lost my edge -- retired now for exactly 10 years.

You will recall Moore's Law. Keeping that in mind, I was in Seattle about five years ago and met an Australian engineer who worked for Intel. In fact, I'd met him about two years before that at a coffee house in Tacoma (jazz-club across the street from a library -- nifty place -- forgot the name though). In that first meeting, he spoke, eyes bulging, about how the technology was "getting down to the molecular level." The second time I ran into him, it was on Sunday at my cousin's church, and he had quit Intel -- literally given up his work, saying that the limits of progress had become "insane."

I think they keep hitting roadblocks now, and Moore's Law may not apply as an exponential imperative. They keep coming up with other advancements in silicon technology, but it could be reaching a limit under the current paradigm. In other words, comparing your words and the Australian's, "It's not just insane, because it's insane."

So that might explain the longevity of the Q6600/Q6700 ascendancy.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Did you even read the links you published at the top from Xbit? "It's beating the q6600 solidly in both of these." Who would compare a stock cpu to an OC cpu?

Crysis Q6600 oc is faster
Far Cry 2 Q6600 oc is faster
Ut3 PhII oc is faster
World in Conflict Q6600 oc is faster
Left for Dead Q6600 oc is faster

The 'Video Encoding' page only has two benches, both of which are won by the 3.72ghz PhII. Q6600 wins every test in general performance and splits the tests on rendering despite the clock speed deficit. The Q6600 oc also dominates the higher-clock PhII oc in the rendering test. Looking through the total list of benches in that article, the VAST majority of wins go to the 3.6ghz Q6600 over the 3.72ghz PhII, it's at least a 3 to 1 number.

Go to the NuclearMC thread, and see what scientific number-crunching does with Q6600 vs. PhII. A couple examples :

Phenom II 955 @ 3.7ghz : 16393
Phenom II 940 @ 3.68ghz : 15418
Q9450 @ 2.8Ghz : 16126
Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz : 12058
Q9650 @ 4.05ghz : 23397
Q8200 @ 3.0ghz : 16832
i7 920 @ 2.67ghz : 17373
E5200 @ 3.4ghz : 12199 ABAIIAEAGECDDB.IGJ
Phenom II 805 @ 3.0ghz : 10026 AJJBFABACICJHH.HFH

The last two are both mine, with the checksums there (confirms real benchmark results at the recorded clock speeds). After getting the PhII 805 to 3.5ghz, it gets just under 14000 now, which is pretty sad. The PhII 800 series does seem to take some punishment for the lower cache amount.

I'll toss some batteries in my camera in a bit and take some pics of my setup to show I'm not making it up, I paid good money for the 790X + Ph2 805 X4, and I really want it to be good. I also can't get my NB to 2.4, not even close. It pukes around 2.2ghz, though I haven't given it more than a small voltage bump. I like AMD, and I frequently recommend ATI video cards, it's just that this purchase has been pretty disappointing.

I really don't get where you're coming with these accusations that I'm a fanboy, or that I have significant favoritism one way or the other. If I had patience, I could link you to a multitude of times that I've recommended the recent ATI GPUs.

What I'm currently upset about is that my brand new overclocked PhII gets beaten in most things by a chip that's closing on THREE years old. I also didn't get my PhII at exactly a bargain price. I probably would be less disappointed if I had unlocked a bargain X3, as this thing was stupidly expensive for what it is. Q6700 apparently can be had for ~$170, and as I already had a board, that would have made sense to me.

HOPEFULLY there will be some future Cpu gen (32nm + more cache?) that will drop in to this board, as I'm ALSO not happy with the Intel multi-socket roulette. Perhaps two sockets I could understand, but three is excessive IMHO.

EDIT : Forgot this page, in which three out of four tests dramatically favor the lower-speed Q6600 @ 3.6ghz to the 3.72Ghz PhII. Other Applications. Thankfully the PhII at least shows strongly in WinRAR.

They didn't OC the cpu-NB any (by any I mean 2.6Ghz like everybody can now). This makes a big difference, up to 10% in some applications.

Nuclear doesn't matter, just like Sysmark doesn't matter; they're synthetic benchmarks.

In sidegrading my IP35-E + e8400 to this current rig I doubled the number of cores I had, kept the exact same OC (I had a C0 e8400), but I got a new motherboard out of it, one with a much better power supply for the CPU (my IP35-E was starting to experience some nasty vdroop at load, now that's completely gone), and my board supports Xfire, Optical (and coaxial) SPDIF in/out (I only make use of the optical and coax out though), Raid 0/1/5/0+1....
(oh and it unlocked my Ph2 x3 to a fully featured X4 but that depends on the CPU so we'll leave that feature out)

If that's not value added at the same price I don't know what is. And I can take this CPU to the next AM3 board when I upgrade, whereas the LGA775 is a dead socket.
I couldn't ever have gotten all these features at once on a new board for the price I paid.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I don't base all of my claims because I didn't do the research, I base my claims on real benchmarks like the Xbit link above. Fact : the Q6600 wins the dominant majority of the benchmarks, even though there is a gap in clockspeed. This is against the superior PhII 900 series.

There is nothing wrong with being disappointed that a new Quad core getting outperformed by a relatively ancient processor.

The GPU market is similar to the CPU market enough for this to be a really bizarre situation. Tell me one other time in history where a nearly three year old processor was still able to be highly competitive to new upper-tier processors.

In 1996, the top processor was something like the 200MMX, and by 1999, we had P3 600 and the first K7s. Three years later in '02, you went from ~600mhz CPUs to 2ghz P4s and the legendary Athlon XP. Three years after that we went from single-core ~2000+/2Ghz range into mid-3ghz Pentium Ds, and the superior Athlon 64 X2s. Three years is a long time in the CPU world, and normal circumstances are ones where even midrange CPUs are dominantly faster than a bleeding-edge three-year-old setup.

I think it may just be that the Q6600 is an axe-murdering exception to the general rules, and you're absolutely right, it's also better (comparing OC to OC of course) to the Q8000 series AFAIK, and is still competitive in most things with pretty much anything you can throw at it other than a highly overclocked i7. It's a joker in the deck to a great degree.

I got the 800 series because I didn't want to take the chance of not being able to unlock an X3, and I couldn't afford the 900 series. Fry's had the well-reviewed MA790XUD4P w/OEM PhII 805 for $250, and it seemed a decent buy at the time. It's not the worst case scenario, but admittedly it was a mistake for me. There really isn't a lot of info out there on the 800 series, and next to nothing on the 805 in particular. It overclocks great, but is beat by C2Q's of sometimes dramatically lower clocks.

The Q6600 launched in January of 2007. Phenom II launched in December of 2009. That's just two years, not three years like you keep repeating over and over.

I don't know what "normal" circumstances you are referring to. The game has changed slightly since the release of Core 2 Duo, and you should recognize this as the new norm. Those chips, as well as new chips, were just great overclockers. However, overclocking is still not a guarantee, especially with hardware that has been in use for some time.

If you expected Phenom II to just stomp all over another overclocked chip, then you just haven't been paying attention the last 3 years when Intel raced ahead of AMD, and AMD is trying to catch back up.

And the Q8000 series, IMO, is better than the Q6600. It uses less power, and in most applications it will perform the same or outperform the Q6600 (clock for clock). For media and encoding applications, the Q8000 is definitely a better solution.

AND AGAIN, wtf is with these BS statements? " It overclocks great, but is beat by C2Q's of sometimes dramatically lower clocks." Show me some proof (I'm not referring to the Xbit article as we've already beaten that dead horse), and not just in a single synthetic application. There are applications where the Phenom II would beat the C2Q, but I'm not going to post them and start making claims of generality, because one or two applications is never going to show the spectrum of a processor's performance.

Stop saying bullshit like "dramatically" or "dominating" without at the very least using qualifiers. How many times do I have to explain my motherfucking point? One last time: Clock for clock, across the average of applications and especially for games, Phenom II and Core 2 Quad are, for all intents and purposes, providing a user with the same experience and performance. One application may favor AMD, a lot of applications would favor Intel, but I'll repeat for gaming, which is what the original poster of this thread intends to do, the two platforms are equivalent.

 

[Arkaign]

You are the one using vulgar language, getting emotional, and throwing a fit. Earlier in this very thread, MarkFW900, the CPUs and Overclocking Moderator says, and I quote :

"I wouldn't call it fanboyism. I have 2 940's@3.6-3.7, and in most things the Q6600@3.2-3.3 beats it."

He owns both, and knows his stuff. If you're calling me out, you're calling him out.

But fine, I'll find more proof.

Compare this : 2.8ghz C2Q 9550 vs. 3.0ghz PhII 940.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-19.html and the following pages, I left off the earlier benches which favor C2Q already.

Crysis, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, UT3, Acrobat 9, Winrar 3.80, Winzip 11, Photoshop CS3, Studio 12, LAME Mp3, iTunes, Premiere Pro CS3, Xvid 1.1.3, Blu-Ray, Nero 8 Recode, 3d Studio Max 9, Fritz 11, Cinema 4D all favor C2Q 9550 2.8Ghz.

AVG 11, Mainconcept Reference, Divx 6.8.3 favor PhII 940 3.0Ghz.

EIGHTTEEN of the twenty-one benches listed above favor the lower-clocked C2Q 9550, sometimes by a little, sometimes by quite a decent amount (10%+).

I've shown what I need, I don't have to listen to your profanity and emotional outbursts any more in this thread. I don't even disagree with the point that the PhII can offer good value and respectable performance, but it's certainly wouldn't be my first choice given the better alternatives. I am glad I at least gave AMD a sale, and it could be worse. BTW, Q8000 is cache limited compared to Q6000, and with low multipliers is somewhat OC limited. I'd take my PhII over the Q8000 series, given that it's somewhat hard to get Q8000 even to Q6600/6700 OC levels.

 

[Lateralusxxx]

Originally posted by: cubeless
my advice is sell your sticks and go with some nice ocz reaper 1066 for around $45 for 4gb ar... will give you the headroom u need to wring that 6700 till it squeaks...

Will 1066 ram work with my board? My board says it only supports up to ddr2 800. Sorry im not an overclocker, but would like to so i dont know anything about voltages, timings etc. should i get that ram or some good 800 ram...

And i already bought the CPU so could you guys stop arguing over AMD and intel chips or start another thread?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Lateralusxxx

Originally posted by: cubeless
my advice is sell your sticks and go with some nice ocz reaper 1066 for around $45 for 4gb ar... will give you the headroom u need to wring that 6700 till it squeaks...

Will 1066 ram work with my board? My board says it only supports up to ddr2 800. Sorry im not an overclocker, but would like to so i dont know anything about voltages, timings etc. should i get that ram or some good 800 ram...

And i already bought the CPU so could you guys stop arguing over AMD and intel chips or start another thread?

Sorry, I support your decision, had to defend myself against emotional outbursts from people offended by the truth.

Yes, 1066 will be a better match for you, and OC'ing that 6700 will be pretty simple and offer huge payoffs. Get a good air cooler and read this :

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797&p=3

^^ Deals with your mobo

 

[Lateralusxxx]

Cool. Im not worried about airflow... i have a large case with 4 80mm fans and one 120mm on the GPU and CPU

Thanks man.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Amazing, there are still fanboys that believe PIIs are fast as C2Qs clock for clock.

 

[Lateralusxxx]

which ram set should i get
G.skill or OCZ reaper?
i have g.skill now and like it but this would be a nice upgrade: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231166
or should i got with the ocz reaper? cheaper in the long run but i hear it takes 3-4 months to get the rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820227289

if there is no huge difference, I might go with the g.skill

 

[cubeless]

no real difference, except money...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
You are the one using vulgar language, getting emotional, and throwing a fit. Earlier in this very thread, MarkFW900, the CPUs and Overclocking Moderator says, and I quote :

"I wouldn't call it fanboyism. I have 2 940's@3.6-3.7, and in most things the Q6600@3.2-3.3 beats it."

He owns both, and knows his stuff. If you're calling me out, you're calling him out.

But fine, I'll find more proof.

Compare this : 2.8ghz C2Q 9550 vs. 3.0ghz PhII 940.

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-19.html and the following pages, I left off the earlier benches which favor C2Q already.

Crysis, Supreme Commander, World in Conflict, UT3, Acrobat 9, Winrar 3.80, Winzip 11, Photoshop CS3, Studio 12, LAME Mp3, iTunes, Premiere Pro CS3, Xvid 1.1.3, Blu-Ray, Nero 8 Recode, 3d Studio Max 9, Fritz 11, Cinema 4D all favor C2Q 9550 2.8Ghz.

AVG 11, Mainconcept Reference, Divx 6.8.3 favor PhII 940 3.0Ghz.

EIGHTTEEN of the twenty-one benches listed above favor the lower-clocked C2Q 9550, sometimes by a little, sometimes by quite a decent amount (10%+).

I've shown what I need, I don't have to listen to your profanity and emotional outbursts any more in this thread. I don't even disagree with the point that the PhII can offer good value and respectable performance, but it's certainly wouldn't be my first choice given the better alternatives. I am glad I at least gave AMD a sale, and it could be worse. BTW, Q8000 is cache limited compared to Q6000, and with low multipliers is somewhat OC limited. I'd take my PhII over the Q8000 series, given that it's somewhat hard to get Q8000 even to Q6600/6700 OC levels.

You still don't understand what the fuck I'm saying, as you glance over qualifiers inherent in my posts. I didn't personally attack your, either, I'm just expressing my own frustration with YOU. And what the fuck are you talking about me calling you and Mark out? Who gives a shit, dude? To care if someone is calling someone else out is completely irrelevant to the point I've been trying to make. And to care about "emotional outbursts" is also the silliest thing I've ever read.

And we were talking about the Q6600, not the Q9550. But no matter as for the most part my point still stands for gaming. After looking at those benches from tomshardware, I'll still say once the detail levels are cranked up with today's video cards, you're going to get the same performance from either Phenom II or Core 2 Quad. This has been shown even on Anandtech, where the Q9550 is even clocked 450 MHz higher than the Phenom II 940.

As for other applications, I've already addressed this issue so I advise you to re-read my statements.

AND SINCE YOU STILL DON'T GET IT: For these other applications (video encoding, photo editing, 3D modeling, etc), I have not been trying to say Phenom II beats Core 2 Quad clock for clock. What I have been trying to say, which now I will call you out, and that you don't seem to fucking understand is that Core 2 Quad is not dominating, killing, destroying, dramatically enhancing performance, or etc Phenom II. If there was a processor (clock for clock) which stomps the crap out of Phenom II (and C2Q for that matter) it would be Core i7 (but not necessarily for gaming, where until games are well multithreaded the difference is only marginal). I'm simply saying, for these other applications, the difference (clock for clock) is marginal on the average. And like I've said before, there are certainly applications that would favor one more heavily than the other, but I'm using a qualifier with my previous statement. That qualifier is "on the motherfucking average". My entire issue is your exaggeration of the statements by saying "stomp the crap" and "dominating", and it's hilarious to see you scramble to prove points I haven't even been trying to disprove. All of the data you've given has actually worked for my benefit, and the sad part is that you don't even realize it.

Now gaming, realistically speaking, the performance difference is null, zero, zilch, or in a worst case scenario very, very marginal.

I never claimed Phenom II is faster than Core 2 Quad (clock for clock), yet you keep posting bullshit like I did. And since you won't even admit it, I'm going to repeat myself one more time: Stop saying Core 2 completely and utterly destroys Phenom II, because this just simply is NOT TRUE (yes, I am laughing when you were the one to say I get offended by the truth when you don't fucking understand the truth itself).

Originally posted by: clairvoyant129
Amazing, there are still fanboys that believe PIIs are fast as C2Qs clock for clock.

What's not amazing is that there are still users who don't read nor much less comprehend posts.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Lateralusxxx
Right now I am running a C2D e6400 on an asus p5w DH mobo, 2 gigs(planning to add another 2gb) of ram and an 4890 1Gb VC. Would upgrading to a core 2 quad q6700 now keep my system in the high range for a while or is this chip going to hold me back in the long run? is it worth the $180? I am thinking it might cost too much to upgrade my mobo, new ddr3 ram and a new CPU.
or is there something i could upgrade to that would be similar in price?

The Q6700 (overclocked @ 3.4) will serve you just fine for quite a while for 180$. I think it's a great upgrade. Your 4890 will get to stretch it's legs a little also. Save your money for a complete upgrade in a year or two.:thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
... the fuck .. what the fuck ... .. shit ... .. fucking understand .. bullshit.. motherfucking average .. fucking understand ..

You win, whatever