Nemo Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) Intel Core2 Q6600 CPU Review It's that time of the year again. Your single or even dual core CPU is starting to feel the strain of multi-tasking, and you just need more power. That Edited February 16, 2007 by Nemo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I want to see that chip on a 680 board Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Wow, it really seems like this C2Q got STOMPED in the gaming categories. Here's some comparisons I did with the review data: C2Q Q6600 vs. X2 4800+ In 15 total benchmarks, the 4800+ tied or beat the Q6600 eight times. If you allow a 3% margin of error, that number jumps to ten. In the same 15 benchmarks, the 4800+ was within a 15% margin of the Q6600 in 14/15 tests. When you consider that the only exception to this was at 800x600 resolution, that becomes even more dramatic (considering how doubtful it is that anyone would use an $850 processor at that resolution). C2Q Q6600 vs. 939 4000+ In 15 benchmarks, the 4000+ tied or beat the Q6600 seven times. Allowing a 3% margin of error, that number changes to eight. The 4000+ was also within a 15% margin in 12/15. At the highest resolution (the one most likely to be used with such a powerhouse chip), the Q6600 never beat the 4000+ by more than 10%. What I find most staggering is that the Q6600 performs worst (relative to the other two) at higher resolutions. I can only wonder how much worse the numbers would be at 1600x1200, given this trend. But given that such an expensive chip will almost assuredly be used at 1280 res or higher, these numbers don't bode well for the quad-core in the gaming world. On top of that, the MASSIVE price difference further skews the picture. Take the comparison to the 4000+, for example. The 4000+ costs almost ELEVEN TIMES less than the Q6600, yet it beats it or comes within 3% in over half the tests. And at the most logical resolution for a system like this, it's never beaten by more than 10%. At 1600x1200 (considering the trends in the data provided), it looks like that percentage would be even lower. So if a two year old 4000+ can hang this closely with the Q6600, how does an E6600 compare to it? We don't know for sure from these numbers, but I think that given the trends, it's safe to assume the E6600 is still a substantially better chip for gamers, especially when figuring in price ratios and overclocking potential. It may dominate in encoding tasks, but for gamers, this just doesn't seem worth it at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I agree with you Ryan........ The one thing I am wondering is if they can tweak the 680 chipset drivers to get better performance because really more then one task is what it performs better at Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I agree with you Ryan........ The one thing I am wondering is if they can tweak the 680 chipset drivers to get better performance because really more then one task is what it performs better at Honestly, I was pretty shocked. Quad-core does seem silly to me at this stage in the game, but I really am amazed at how poorly it did when stacked up against such old chips. And the downward performance trend with increasing resolutions is quite scary too, and somewhat puzzling. I hope you're right about the chipset stuff. But this was tested on a Bad Axe right? Intel chip on intel chipset is about as safe of a bet and you can get, I'd think. I don't know, it's definitely weird. Even ignoring the quad-core element, we know the C2D architecture is amazing. You'd think it would stand out even outside the SMP domain. I guess this chip will just have to wait until more multi-core games come out. It was a good review though. LOTS of graphs and comparisons, which was really nice. Also, I wouldn't be too down about the poor OC. It seems like a lot of Q6600 reviews list similar OCs. Nice work! It's just a shame such an expensive chip didn't stack up very well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingGhost Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 /me waits for bigred. It's a waste to use a quad core processor on windows... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I hope you're right about the chipset stuff. But this was tested on a Bad Axe right? Intel chip on intel chipset is about as safe of a bet and you can get, I'd think. I don't know, it's definately weird. Even ignoring the quad-core element, we know the C2D architecture is amazing. You'd think it would stand out even outside the SMP domain. I guess this chip will just have to wait until more multi-core games come out. It was a good review though. LOTS of graphs and comparisons, which was really nice. Also, I wouldn't be too down about the poor OC. It seems like a lot of Q6600 reviews list similar OCs. Nice work! It's just a shame such an expensive chip didn't stack up very well. Ya the intel board is a 975 chipset, we have some 680's coming up so it will be nice to see if there is a decent increase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallman Posted February 17, 2007 Posted February 17, 2007 From what I have seen, it clocks the best on the 965 chipset, P5B Deluxe to be exact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdy284 Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 this just underwent a major update guys, take a look! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scratch Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 hmm I'm quite shocked as I purchased the 680i mainly for the purpose of upgrading to a quad at some point but am seriously still having a blast with the E6400 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 I just looked... maybe I'm blind but what was updated? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 I just looked... maybe I'm blind but what was updated? Read the review... the E6400 and E6600 was added and the Conclusion was completely changed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts