Upgrade Q6600 to i7 920: worthwhile??

[mjavid]

Hi,
I have been out of the PC loop for some time....

Would there be a significant increase in performance by replacing my Q6600 which I OC to 3 GHz on air (Freezer 7 Pro). I don't play games but I do a bit of video encoding. I would be using a MB such as the AS Rock X58 Extreme with only a modest OC with likely the stock cooler (could I use my Freezer 7??).

Any opinion would be appreciated,

Javid.

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

You would get an increase in performance with video encoding. But if you only do it a `bit' then I would say it's not worth the upgrade, because the upgrade will cost you at least $500~$800 for just the CPU/Mobo/RAM alone (and that's assuming you got it used or up to new but on sale some where for the parts). The i7 really is a monstrous CPU. And it overclocks very well, just like the classic Q6600 which is still a phenomenal CPU. So if a few seconds is worth that price tag for you, then go with what you want. The Freezer 7 has to have mounting brackets for the new i7 chipset or it won't fit; not sure if you have those brackets (though a Mugen2 is only $35 and is far better as a cooler if you're interested).

Personally I'd stay with the overclocked Q6600 right now.

Very best,

 

[kalrith]

At this point I still see no reason to upgrade my 3.25 GHz Q6600. My 2900 Pro video card is a different story

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

If you can get it stable at 3.6Ghz however if you don't want to venture in to pushing it, the i7 is a great chip. I am waiting till my game rig is finished until i turn my rig2 into it's intended purpose.

 

[Decembermouse]

I don't really think it's worth the upgrade... not for the price and what you could get for a used Q6600

Yes it would be a bit faster for encoding, but the Q6600 is a very nice CPU, and a quad-core. I'm jealous lol.

 

[gaidensensei]

Thanks for the posts, I was wondering the same thing about the Q6600 vs i7.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Just read a guy had his 6600 overclocked and he upgraded to an i7 920 and the 920 runs circles around his old system

 

[GundamF91]

It's not worth it in terms of dollars/performance ratio, because you're basically gutting the current system by swapping out CPU, Mobo, and RAM. These are core of the system, and are rather expensive unless you plan on using them in a 2nd PC.

For sure the i7 is a better CPU, but you're only going to get incremental benefits, and the extra burst of speed from i7 is not going to make your investment worthwhile. It's not a leap in performance for what you're using the system for....it'll be more worthwhile say if you have the i7 overclocked to 4Ghz and running video editing or folding 24/7.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I'd try for 3.6Ghz before I'd drop the money for a 500$ platform swap. Then if you can't get it as fast as you want, see what your parts are re-selling for and see how much of a diff you'll save on your new system.

 

[Cattykit]

If you do a lot of video encoding, UPGRADE IT. If you do tiny bit of it, think about it.

Here's my experience. I used Q6600 @ 3.2ghz and upgraded to i7 860 @ 3.7 ghz.

Working on 5D mk2 files on Vegas was damn annoying close to the level of impossible. I'd get 12-14 fps on timeline preview. With i7 860, it's full fps though it does drop if working on a few layers.

How about rendering speed?
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz: 32 min 14 sec. (99% CPU utilization)
i7 860 @ 3.7ghz: 12 min 30 sec. (93-96% CPU utilization)

What more can I say? In my case, it was damn worth it.

 

[SanDiegoPC]

Just read a guy had his 6600 overclocked and he upgraded to an i7 920 and the 920 runs circles around his old system

That was me. My Q6600 on an Abit IP35 Pro board was overclocked to 3.4 and it ran great for a few years. But this new build is MUCH faster. The Q6600 just does not even come close.

 

[mjavid]

That was me. My Q6600 on an Abit IP35 Pro board was overclocked to 3.4 and it ran great for a few years. But this new build is MUCH faster. The Q6600 just does not even come close.

First of all, thank you all for your responses and a happy new year!

1.The majority opinion seemed to be that I would not have a significant gain by the upgrade, given what I plan to do, and would spend upward $500 to do it.

2.But San Diego PC (with the same system as me: Abit IP35 Pro, OC'ed Q6600) states that his Core i 920 system is much faster....was this using a 64 bit OS or the same OS he used with the Q6600? And what was the system being used for?

 

[PUN]

About 6months ago, I did an upgrade from
Q6600 @ 3.3ghz -> i7 920@ 4.0ghz

I mostly game, encode/decode, photos, movies, and internet.
Time is much less with encoding/decoding but it does not make much difference as I do it while I am afk.

Personally, you'll not see any difference in daily usage. Save your money and get a SSD or a decent monitor instead.

 

[zuffy]

About 6months ago, I did an upgrade from
Q6600 @ 3.3ghz -> i7 920@ 4.0ghz

I mostly game, encode/decode, photos, movies, and internet.
Time is much less with encoding/decoding but it does not make much difference as I do it while I am afk.

Personally, you'll not see any difference in daily usage. Save your money and get a SSD or a decent monitor instead.

I agree with this post. I don't play games but mostly Photoshop, movies and internet. Sometimes using Videora to convert TV shows for my iPod. Really no difference in daily usage in the 2 systems in my sig. You're better off using that money for an SSD, extra HDD, or monitor. And before anyone blast me for spending that type of money on my systems, I didn't have to pay for most of it.

 

[andy5174]

Hi,
I have been out of the PC loop for some time....

Would there be a significant increase in performance by replacing my Q6600 which I OC to 3 GHz on air (Freezer 7 Pro). I don't play games but I do a bit of video encoding. I would be using a MB such as the AS Rock X58 Extreme with only a modest OC with likely the stock cooler (could I use my Freezer 7??).

Any opinion would be appreciated,

Javid.

Upgrade to i7 if and only if you do a lot of video encoding, otherwise it's a waste of money IMO.

 

[eelw]

I'm happy that I upgraded from my Q6600 OCed to 3.4 to my i7 920 OCed to 4.2. My video encoding times are easily halved. And some of the SW I'm still using doesn't take advantage of all 8 threads, so I can run 2 instances without any problems. I did this last year the end of January. So I spent the extra premium at that time. But I was also able to sell the old parts so the upgrade wasn't as expensive.

 

[SanDiegoPC]

2.But San Diego PC (with the same system as me: Abit IP35 Pro, OC'ed Q6600) states that his Core i 920 system is much faster....was this using a 64 bit OS or the same OS he used with the Q6600? And what was the system being used for?

No, I was using XP Pro on the last build, now I have Win7 64. The use of the PC is the same though. I do heavy-duty image processing with special software that stacks hundreds of images, each is 6MB in size. It is similar to video editing but what I am stacking is astronomical images taken with my telescopes. http://tinyurl.com/yzadv98

This computer will process 125-150 images and stack them into a single picture in about half the time the Q6600 could do the same job.

 

[mebiuspower]

I jumped from E6600 o/c 3.2 to i7 920... I haven't even o/c yet but I can already feel the difference.

Jumped from XP to Win7 64bit as well. Wow what a difference.

I have a photography business and do a lot of RAW image conversions (8000+ 10Mb RAWs on fashion week), and my old computer was holding me down.

And I thought all the people on anandtech don't need a real reason for upgrades??? I mean we're all enthusiasts aka geeks right?

 

[Lean L]

We all know that the i7 is better at raw processing tasks such as encoding. If that is what you do, go for it, otherwise there is no point.

I've used a Phenom II 965, i7 870, Q6600, and a dual processor work station with two dual core 5140s in it for extended periods of time. Honestly, there's no real noticeable difference if you aren't actually doing raw processing.

Anyone that says they noticed a difference between the processors just from using it is probably experiencing a placebo effect.

Just depends on how much you encode at this point. If it's once in a blue moon, I'd say not worth the moolah.

 

[Jd007]

I had an AMD Phenom II X4 810 OC'd to 3.2Ghz, which is the same performance level as a slightly overclocked Q6600, and I upgraded to X58 and i7 920 recently. I didn't notice a big performance bump, even in multi-threaded applications (a lot of them don't use more than 4 threads anyway). For a huge noticeable increase in speed, spend the money on an SSD instead (I kind of regret upgrading my mobo and CPU now, knowing that I could've gotten a pretty good SSD with the same price).

 

[Oxaqata]

Edit

 

[mebiuspower]

How'd you video/image editors manage 10 years ago? :S (Pent.1-P3 etc.)

There was an invention called the dark room. lol.

 

[TJCS]

i7 with HT is a monster for video encoding. If you just want an extra boost for your gaming rig it's probably not worth it. New CPU & GPU out next year.

 

[GundamF91]

You can tell the divergence here, people who do specialized tasks such as video/photo editing will definitely appreciate the extra horsepower from the i7. Other people who do "normal" stuff such as browsing, office docs, games, and minor editing will not see much gain.