Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Krazy Owl, Aug 23, 2012.
This 8600GT got some place for Overclocking anyway
must be some old games. you'd be massively CPU limited, especially with crossfire.
What is the gpu overclocking program again? I forgot the name. Thx
Nonsense. I play a wide range of games and most of them play the same whether I'm at 2GHz or 3.33. Some of them I can even play at my forced low-volt 2D GPU clocks of 333/500 (1000DDR) as well as the CPU underclock. It gets very hot where I live, hence my extensive testing with underclocking and undervolting. When ambient temps are over 40C, you do what you can.
OP has a 1080p monitor, his CPU isn't going to be a problem IMHO. The 8600GT is his biggest bottleneck there. GPU upgrade first, platform upgrade later.
I am personally running a Q6600 RIGHT NOW, and running all the latest shizznoodle and the Q6600 is SOLID AS A ROCK - if you read your reviews carefully the good old Q still outperforms MANY newer mid range processors, and only slightly overclocked even still outperforms many higher range CPU's too, but if it does have one flaw I could warn about it is MEMORY BANDWIDTH.
Sadly this flaw is not at all to do with the processor , but just its general generation - at the time DDR2 800mhz was all the rage.
Now although mathematically the old Q6600 still has a LOT of punch, its overall memory-data bus is really beginning to feel the heat - a classic example is Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance, a game that with AI running, is notoriously brutal on a motherboard in general with its extremely large & wide floating maths stack it can bring almost any PC to its knees and this shows my point greatly - under full load the game begins to lag very badly, and if you go to a process explorer you will see that all of your cores are only rocking around 45% busy... 65% free but the game runs like crap - this is because there is upwards of 2.5 GB's of variables and co'ords and positions relating to every single unit on the map which is run in near full physics simulation.
The CPU cant physically GET at the work than needs to be done because the ram/bus itself is the bottleneck.
In reality, very little apart from massive physics simulation of literally thousands of units (Such as in SupCom FA) will show this flaw but it is there none the less.
You will also feel the burn on HIGH complexity HD graphics, and video trans coding - performance will drop but CPU will be less than 80% busy, the good old Q6600 was SO good, it was faster than its own memory bus.
So in short If you have a good Video Card, the Q6600 will still be taking on general gaming solid as a rock for another 2 years at least, but if you want to get into SLI/Crossfire high end performance configurations, you may be better off moving up to a nice 2500K i5
LATE EDIT : I will agree with anyone who has said it already, the 8600GT HAS GOT TO GO - I already threw out my 8800GT almost 2 years ago now - that will be by far the largest problem for newer games. If your priority is gaming spend as hard as you can on your video card, don't worry too much about the cpu, any reasonable quad core will do for MOST games, as long as you have a STRONG video card.
Its almost worthless overclocking a 8600gt TBH.
Now 8600 OC http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/aekk9/
For nw gonna do the job on Battlefield 2.
I think the Q6600 will still be ok for gaming still, its the 8600GT that will be holding you back, i have a old comp here that runs SLi 8600GT's and well yes it can play most of the games but it starts to realy struggle with more modem games like black ops etc. Personally i wouldn't go any lower then a 9600GT these days to play modern games as a 9600GT is more or less two 8600GT's when it comes to performance wise.
MSI afterburner or EVGA precision
ntune i used
ntune is unstable and very glitchy, stick to afterburner or precision as they are better overall
I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
The 86xxx was a complete flop for it's time performance wise. They were slower than it's predecessor 79xx and 19xx series and cost more on release. Even for SLI it was heh.
The 9600GT on the other hand performed really well, just slightly slower than the 8800GT and was priced reasonably well. Aside for the odd blue screen of death due to chipset conflicts it was a good card.
I have an Athlon II X4 which is about as fast as a Q6600 and I have no problem with newer games. Saying that I have mine OC'd 1GHz above stock.
I would recommend overclocking the CPU and dropping in a better video card. The 8600GT isnt going to cut it.
Ashame. Either way the video card issue needs addressing first,
No possible oc on that board. Acer board with intel chipset
Have you looked at something like "Clockgen"" or "SetFSB"? They might be able to get you a workaround to that problem
CPU should be fine for a while, update the GFX
Remember people we live in the "port" age
The 8600 had 32 SP, 1/4th as much as the high end chip and performed acoordingly. You'll be hard pressed to find any other mid-range cards so crippled in the whole GPU history. Can it play games, of course, but it's nothing like 6600, 7600, 9600, 460... and this only from Nvidia. All those mid-range cards have in common that they are 1/2 the high-end chip or more in case of the 460.
This is what W1zz said in his frst 8600 review:
I'm not saying that it sucks, nor I'm trying to make the OP feel bad or anything, because there really isn't any reason for feeling bad. But the 8600 has never been a good performer, when copared to almost literally any other mid-range card.
Thats fine. Ill just say i disagree and that I dont give 2 shits what w1zzard said.
either way he needs a new card and the CPU is fine.
Which part do you disagree with?
If you don't care for W1zzard, most other reviews say the same.
Lets put our pride aside here. The 8600 series was slower than the 79xx series and costed more. Yes it had DX10 support but back then there was few DX games available and the card was too slow to play games in DX10 mode anyways. Bottom line is the card sucked.
To add some balance the ATI 2600 series also sucked back in 2006.
It sucks that you can't oc, thats alot of potential performance lost
I personally have a Q8400 on one pc and it outperforms a FX6100 oc'd
but the videocard is a definite upgrade
hi, im also using a q6600 at stock with a hd6950 at stock @ res 1920/1200 and it plays bf3 and anything else i have thrown at it just fine
Hello, I also own a Q6600 and a MSI GTX 550 Ti OC edition and I play @ 1920 x 1080 (Unfortunately I hadn't find a 1920 x 1200 monitor in my country of residence) and it holds together pretty well.
Tried but nothing working. Sorry
Basically OP, just upgrade your GPU and you will be fine for a while.
My Laptop has a q9000 in it (basically a 2ghz q6600 with 1.5x the L2) and with a decent gpu overclock it does fine in bad company 2, not quite as demanding as bf3 but with a decent GPU I'd imagine you'd be fine even without the OC. It's not gonna push super high fps through a xfire or sli setup but playable? I'd bet on it.
The Q9xxx series were 45NM chip while the Q6xxx series were 65NM. Much smaller and faster process.
Just gonna upgrade for a 90$ 9570 card delivered inlucded in this price. My budget under 100$.
Separate names with a comma.