A Digital Age Deserves A Digital Leader

Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby yeshuas » Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:21 pm

I have had really good luck with Q6600, has anyone else used another quad. I am not ready to switch to the I7 yet as that means different memory etc.

Anyone used the Q9550?
Game Over!!!!!!!!
Image
ASUS Maximus V Gene MB
Windows 8 X64; Windows 7 X64; Windows 7 X86
Intel I5-3570K
16GB Corsair Vengeance Ram
eVGA GeForce GTX 550 TI
Corsair GS700 PS
1TB Seagate SATA 6.0Gb HD
Thermaltake Case
Software Development
User avatar
Posts: 5075
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Real Name: Daniel Schmidt

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby Grav!ty » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:22 pm

Why are you wanting to upgrade Daniel?
Image

"The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." - Niccolo Machiavelli
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 15790
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:22 am
Real Name: Graham

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby NT50 » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:21 pm

I have not upgrade from my Q6600 due to face I have a led display on my keyboard and it says that I have never used all my processor. Now I have used the majority of my memory which is only 2 gig. But now since I hae Win 7 32 bit and XP64 bit I ahe considered upgrade my RAM.

I think the most processor I ahve used is around 57% when loading a couple programs at one time.

EDIT: those programs ae memory hogs btw
Dogs Have Owners; Cats Have Staff
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 8220
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Jackson, TN USA
Real Name: Jeff Replogle

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby augie » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:24 pm

I'll ditto Graham, yes it's 400MHz faster and has a 12MB L2 cache instead of 8MB. No, I have no experience with the 9550 but it's just an incremental increase and to spend some $240 for that is just not worth it IMHO.

I only upgrade when the tech jumps a significant amount, like getting an X2 to replace my single core(same mobo) or up to a quad this time, significant gains in speed each time. I'll be getting an i7 next year when the prices hopefully come down a bit. I'll happily stick to my now lowly Q6600 until then. (You know I'm a power hungry user and severely itch for more power!.;)) Here's a screen just to let you see how choked my quad is ATM.:D It is still very responsive at this load for regular things. :yesnod: ^*^

Image
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -- Carl Jung

eVGA X58 tri-SLI, i7 930 @ 3.8GHz., Corsair 6GB Dominator, Inno3D GTX470, eVGA260
ASUS P8P67 Pro, i7 2600K @4.60 GHz, 8GB RAM, eVGA GTX 460
Community Director
User avatar
Posts: 7870
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 am
Location: Laurentians, Quebec

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby mnemonicj » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:26 pm

The Q6600 is supposed to be one of the base Quad Core processors with limited speed and the slowest FSB for a Quad Core. I think the reason that you are not using all of the processing power of a Quad Core processor is because you are not running applications that are optimized for 4 cores and only use 1 core at a time. If you purchase a faster Quad Core processor you will notice a difference in speed because each process will be performed faster.

One thing that makes the Q9550 much faster is the FSB. At 1333MHz, it has a good advantage over the 1066MHz of the Q6600.
PRO Level 15
User avatar
Posts: 1066
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:41 am
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby augie » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:22 pm

mnemonicj wrote:The Q6600 is supposed to be one of the base Quad Core processors with limited speed and the slowest FSB for a Quad Core. I think the reason that you are not using all of the processing power of a Quad Core processor is because you are not running applications that are optimized for 4 cores and only use 1 core at a time. If you purchase a faster Quad Core processor you will notice a difference in speed because each process will be performed faster.

One thing that makes the Q9550 much faster is the FSB. At 1333MHz, it has a good advantage over the 1066MHz of the Q6600.


Ya, but his PC6400 RAM would hold that back, no? To match a 1333 FSB, one would need PC10500. It's your money Dan.:)
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -- Carl Jung

eVGA X58 tri-SLI, i7 930 @ 3.8GHz., Corsair 6GB Dominator, Inno3D GTX470, eVGA260
ASUS P8P67 Pro, i7 2600K @4.60 GHz, 8GB RAM, eVGA GTX 460
Community Director
User avatar
Posts: 7870
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 am
Location: Laurentians, Quebec

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby NT50 » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:27 pm

Augie

What are you doing to choke down your processor.
As far as I can see from the below images, I need a little more RAM and my low end Q6600 is doing a great job. And I do have MS Outlook 2k7, blackberry software running in background.
processmonitor.PNG
processmonitor.PNG (72.82 KiB) Viewed 2640 times
Dogs Have Owners; Cats Have Staff
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 8220
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Jackson, TN USA
Real Name: Jeff Replogle

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby augie » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:41 pm

Hehehe Jeff, you should poke your head into the Distributed Computing forums once in a while.;) I'm running VirtualBox with an Ubuntu client running a folding@home SMP(Simultaneous Multi Processing), basically means using all four cores. It sure stresses one's machine eh? :)
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -- Carl Jung

eVGA X58 tri-SLI, i7 930 @ 3.8GHz., Corsair 6GB Dominator, Inno3D GTX470, eVGA260
ASUS P8P67 Pro, i7 2600K @4.60 GHz, 8GB RAM, eVGA GTX 460
Community Director
User avatar
Posts: 7870
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 am
Location: Laurentians, Quebec

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby NT50 » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:55 pm

ahhhhhh

I see now

You need another computer for that then :)
Dogs Have Owners; Cats Have Staff
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 8220
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Jackson, TN USA
Real Name: Jeff Replogle

Re: Q6600 or what Quad is better or comparable

Postby yeshuas » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:28 pm

You all make valid points but I am not going to upgrade my Q6600 I am putting it in another computer and my choices were the Q6600 or the Q9550 since they are about the same price or close when you can find the Q6600 that is.
Game Over!!!!!!!!
Image
ASUS Maximus V Gene MB
Windows 8 X64; Windows 7 X64; Windows 7 X86
Intel I5-3570K
16GB Corsair Vengeance Ram
eVGA GeForce GTX 550 TI
Corsair GS700 PS
1TB Seagate SATA 6.0Gb HD
Thermaltake Case
Software Development
User avatar
Posts: 5075
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Real Name: Daniel Schmidt

Next

Return to Hardware and Customizing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
cron