Buying a used Q6600

[cbn]

This post is not directed at Riahc3, but for anyone (in general) who doesn't mind LGA 771 to LGA 775 modding and wants re-use a core 2 duo heatsink, take a look at Xeon L5420 (2.5 Ghz with 12MB cache, 50 watt TDP, $20) and L5410 (2.33 Ghz, 12MB cache, 50 watt TDP, $15).

You'll need a P or G chipset motherboard, but the 50 watt TDP should let you re-use the stock cooler form the Core 2 duo.

 

[riahc3]

Since you don't have a Pre-built, I am assuming you have the stock Intel Core 2 duo Heatsink fan (that comes with the boxed processor).

No. I have a Noctua.

 

[sm625]

I would be leery of buying a Q6600 if you arent going to overclock. I retired my Q6600 system because it was simply too slow, even at 3 GHz. I still use my E8500 system, because it is faster. It's about 30% faster in terms of web browsing benchmarks, but in my experience the difference was even greater. The lag on sites like ebay was unbearable on the Q6600. At stocks speeds, it would be a disaster. If you want to upgrade an LGA775 I highly recommend an E8600.

 

[riahc3]

I would be leery of buying a Q6600 if you arent going to overclock. I retired my Q6600 system because it was simply too slow, even at 3 GHz. I still use my E8500 system, because it is faster. It's about 30% faster in terms of web browsing benchmarks, but in my experience the difference was even greater. The lag on sites like ebay was unbearable on the Q6600. At stocks speeds, it would be a disaster. If you want to upgrade an LGA775 I highly recommend an E8600.

Problably was a bug in your Windows/software configuration.

 

[Denithor]

If you don't already have one, add an SSD to your old machine. That will be a real improvement, versus a CPU upgrade you may not even notice in use.

I will also second the idea of an e8500/e8600 instead of the q6600. Two faster cores is much better for daily use than four slower cores. Plus the e8x00 chips will use less energy and run cooler.

 

[ArisVer]

Im more worried about software/Windows 7 incompatibilies.

Also, Xeons work both in 32 and 64 mode depending on what OS you install right?

Usually the Xeons and Quads (of the same type) are from the same wafer and Quads have less cache or disabled cache. In most or all cases Xeons are of better quality and with lower power. There are no compatibility problems regarding software. If the chip is 64bit (all Core2 are I think) it will also accept 32bit instructions as they are backwards compatible.

 

[maluckey]

for what it's worth. I modded my older Gigabyte EP45-UD3R to run a Xeon e5450. I Overclocked it to just 3.82 Ghz (running 24/7). It's a HUGE boost over the Q9400 I was running. Just for kicks, I added few SSD to the mix.

Feels like a new machine. Games, applications ... hell, EVERYTHING runs faster. It's an easy, cheap, and solid upgrade. Not feeling a need to upgrade until Witcher 3 is sorted out, and even then, this will move to the office.

M

 

[escrow4]

Problably was a bug in your Windows/software configuration.

Unlikely. Core 2 is about as useful as a Pentium D in 2015. Its really old. The architectural changes alone (never mind the clock speed differences) are huge.

 

[Blue_Max]

Unlikely. Core 2 is about as useful as a Pentium D in 2015. Its really old. The architectural changes alone (never mind the clock speed differences) are huge.

Sure, but c'mon... $20 for a nice upgrade and keeps a computer out of recycling/landfill just a little longer.

Someone like grandma will be happier with a Q6600 than a new AMD E-1 processor!

 

[SPBHM]

I would be leery of buying a Q6600 if you arent going to overclock. I retired my Q6600 system because it was simply too slow, even at 3 GHz. I still use my E8500 system, because it is faster. It's about 30% faster in terms of web browsing benchmarks, but in my experience the difference was even greater. The lag on sites like ebay was unbearable on the Q6600. At stocks speeds, it would be a disaster. If you want to upgrade an LGA775 I highly recommend an E8600.

this makes no sense
here for example you can see half a Q6600 3GHz vs the e8500
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/59?vs=55

and some web browsing stuff will benefit from 4 cores, like watching flash videos.

 

[cbn]

this makes no sense
here for example you can see half a Q6600 3GHz vs the e8500
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/59?vs=55

I think you accidentally plugged in the wrong processor into the bench.

E6850 is not half a Q6600. (E6850 is 3.0 Ghz dual core with 4MB cache, while Q6600 is 2.4 Ghz quad core with 8MB cache).

A better comparison for "half a Q6600" would be a E6600 (2.4 Ghz dual core with 4MB cache), but I don't see that as a selection here is the next best thing:

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/61?vs=55

(E6550, 2.33 Ghz dual core with 4MB cache vs. E8500)

 

[SPBHM]

I think you accidentally plugged in the wrong processor into the bench.

E6850 is not half a Q6600. (E6850 is 3.0 Ghz dual core with 4MB cache, while Q6600 is 2.4 Ghz quad core with 8MB cache).

A better comparison for "half a Q6600" would be a E6600 (2.4 Ghz dual core with 4MB cache).

no, that's 100% what I wanted
you mentioned retiring your Q6600 even at 3GHz because it was to slow compared to the e8500
Q6600 = exactly 2x E6850 if you set the fsb to 333 (both even have the same multiplier),

"I retired my Q6600 system because it was simply too slow, even at 3 GHz. I still use my E8500 system"

 

[cbn]

no, that's 100% what I wanted
you mentioned retiring your Q6600 even at 3GHz because it was to slow compared to the e8500
Q6600 = exactly 2x E6850 if you set the fsb to 333 (both even have the same multiplier),

"I retired my Q6600 system because it was simply too slow, even at 3 GHz. I still use my E8500 system"

My mistake.

P.S. It was actually sm625 that had the 3Ghz Q6600, not me.

 

[Faljukin]

My brother uses my old Q6700 @3ghz and as some already mention.... its SLOW.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Unlikely. Core 2 is about as useful as a Pentium D in 2015. Its really old. The architectural changes alone (never mind the clock speed differences) are huge.

Surely that's just a ... slight... exaggeration. With an SSD, a Core2 (preferably at 2.5-3.0Ghz or more) is still decent for web browsing. Thought I admit, my G3258 @ 3.8 is indeed noticeably "snappier" for web browsing.