Sandybridge Benchmark vs. my old Q6600 *UPDATED*

[scrubman]

Here are two tests that I've run since upgrading to SB.
Q6600@3.2GHz vs. 2600k@4.4GHz

Same: video card/drivers, power supply, SSD, OS
Different: cpu, mb, RAM

The only thing that could arguably skew the comparison is 8gig RAM on the SB vs. 4gig RAM on the Q6600.

Crysis Warhead 64bit

***UPDATE*** Much to my dismay, I have realized that the first run of the Crysis Warhead bench was innacurate. I ran the bench without ever going into the game after I installed it. Aparently there was something wrong and I appologize! I should not have been so quick to post test results after just one run. So after going into the game and setting up my player and playing for about 15 minutes I decided to run the bench again. Here are the more accurate test results. Again, I appologize for the confusion and feel horrible for posting innacurate test results. I have run the test multiple times now. I even tried changing the settings within the game but the bench software stays consistent to what it is set for. I do have to say though, the game feels very much smoother and feels more like the numbers I got on my first test!

3DMark06

 

[WaTaGuMp]

4.4 is faster than 3.2, I am shocked.

 

[scrubman]

4.4 is faster than 3.2, I am shocked.

Well there were no guarantees that I would get 4.4 out of a 3.4 chip. I'm showing that it was a worthy upgrade from my 3yr old super great Q6600.

Are you saying you want to see me underclock my SB and run it? Hmmmm.. maybe.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Well there were no guarantees that I would get 4.4 out of a 3.4 chip. I'm showing that it was a worthy upgrade from my 3yr old super great Q6600.

Are you saying you want to see me underclock my SB and run it? Hmmmm.. maybe.

There was a VERY good chance you would get 4.4, come on these chips are pimp.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Do you have a CPU-z (or something) shot of 4.4GHz?

 

[nyker96]

Just curious, in games, do you actually experience a huge difference in terms of lag? Does the upgrade make your game play feeling much more fluid?

 

[TridenT]

Do you have a CPU-z (or something) shot of 4.4GHz?

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

 

[scrubman]

Do you have a CPU-z (or something) shot of 4.4GHz?

 

[richierich1212]

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

4.2-4.4GHz is the average.

 

[StinkyPinky]

4.2-4.4GHz is the average.

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.

 

[Qbah]

Wow, huge jump in Crysis! What settings are you using?

 

[Freejack2]

I just went from an E5200 to a I5-2500k and the processing power jump is amazing. In World of Warcraft, I would get 24-55 fps depending where I was on the E5200. Now I have a hard time finding something that will take it below 60fps. The video card is unchanged.

 

[scrubman]

just curious, in games, do you actually experience a huge difference in terms of lag? Does the upgrade make your game play feeling much more fluid?

exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GundamF91]

WOW, I might consider ditching my Q9450 to get some Sandy Bridge goodness. But it really does everything I ask it right now. Maybe when they have i7-2900 or something.

 

[Markfw]

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.

Well, I have seen a pile at 4.4, and a couple at 4.2. Only one higher, and he lowered it for 24/7 to 4.5.

I agree the 4.4 is the norm.

 

[Freejack2]

I'm getting 4.5 easily on my 2500 and 2600's are rumored to have been binned higher. I'm sure I could get more but then I have to turn the heatsink fan to a noisier speed and tweak voltages. I suspect most people just don't want to bother with the hassle of fine tuning to get more than 4.2 to 4.4.

 

[Jawadali]

Well there were no guarantees that I would get 4.4 out of a 3.4 chip. I'm showing that it was a worthy upgrade from my 3yr old super great Q6600.

Are you saying you want to see me underclock my SB and run it? Hmmmm.. maybe.

Benchmarking the 2600k at 3.2Ghz (or even the stock 3.4Ghz, since its close) would be a great comparison if you get a chance, as it would show how far things have come on an architecture level.



(Aside from the extra 4GB of RAM).

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Benchmarking the 2600k at 3.2Ghz (or even the stock 3.4Ghz, since its close) would be a great comparison if you get a chance, as it would show how far things have come on an architecture level.



(Aside from the extra 4GB of RAM).

All you have to do is visit the bench feature on the site.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

 

[scrubman]

All you have to do is visit the bench feature on the site.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Here ya go!
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=287

 

[Castiel]

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

 

[shlemielo]

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.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

4.4 is faster than 3.2, I am shocked.

Benchmarking the 2600k at 3.2Ghz (or even the stock 3.4Ghz, since its close) would be a great comparison if you get a chance, as it would show how far things have come on an architecture level.

In reality... the Q6600 can't get to 4.4 GHz. So the comparison seems pretty valid. He's comparing the typical overclock you can expect out of both chips. In the real world this is what someone would really be looking at.

 

[Sp12]

Here ya go!
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/53?vs=287

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

 

[Axon]

2500k average seems to be 4.4. 2600k seems to be 4.6.

I've gotten my 2500k to 4.8, but I have to get stupid with the volts (like 1.45 core). Not worth it. All the guys I consider to be "in the know" have expressly said not to exceed high 1.3 volts, so I won't.

 

[vaylon]

WOW, I might consider ditching my Q9450 to get some Sandy Bridge goodness. But it really does everything I ask it right now. Maybe when they have i7-2900 or something.

I have the same cpu as you but with a gigabyte board @ 3.6and a solid state system and was wondering the same thing. It rips balls off at everything it does, so I can't complain about anything.

Do any of the new chips come with 12 mb cache?