Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So i'm hitting 3.2 Ghz on my Q6600 (and could hit higher if i just installed my mother fraggin thermaltake TMG i2 cooler..) and i have no problems with any of my games except my source engine games which are super CPU dependant. While im not getting BAD performance, theres nothing wrong with better, right?

So, price-performance and taking my alreday Q6600 into account, would it be worth the money to go Q9550, or perhaps Q9450?

sorry if mywords are out of order/mis-spelled.. im not sober.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
You should not be having problems with any source games at all. An E6600 wouldn't have problems with any source games.

I'm always down with upgrading, don't get me wrong but you wouldn't see much difference in source games if any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Sorry.. not ALL source games.. counter-strike : source..

it hates me and drops as low as 76 frames sometimes = unacceptable!

L4D scores 100+ at all times unless theres like 2 billion dudes on screen, which it drops to 50 at the lowest of times. This is all maxed with 2x AA and 4x AF...

anywho... CS:S which is the game i play more than any other gets terrible performance considering my rig... so i may* upgrade if the performance increase is worth it when considering perhaps a 3.6~ Ghz 45nm Quad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,265 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MarineRevenge
View Post

Sorry.. not ALL source games.. counter-strike : source..

it hates me and drops as low as 76 frames sometimes = unacceptable!

L4D scores 100+ at all times unless theres like 2 billion dudes on screen, which it drops to 50 at the lowest of times. This is all maxed with 2x AA and 4x AF...

anywho... CS:S which is the game i play more than any other gets terrible performance considering my rig... so i may* upgrade if the performance increase is worth it when considering perhaps a 3.6~ Ghz 45nm Quad.

76 unacceptable :|:|:| Its Counter-Strike dude relax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MarineRevenge
View Post

Sorry.. not ALL source games.. counter-strike : source..

it hates me and drops as low as 76 frames sometimes = unacceptable!

L4D scores 100+ at all times unless theres like 2 billion dudes on screen, which it drops to 50 at the lowest of times. This is all maxed with 2x AA and 4x AF...

anywho... CS:S which is the game i play more than any other gets terrible performance considering my rig... so i may* upgrade if the performance increase is worth it when considering perhaps a 3.6~ Ghz 45nm Quad.

What kind of monitor are you using that you need such high frame rates?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Not sure why you should be dropping to 74fps. I have to cap my fps at 100 in the console because any higher and the whine from my capacitors on my GPU annoy me haha.

I never dip below 100 on source.

Even still you should NOT upgrade probably one of the best quads because CSS dips in FPS sometimes. CS 1.6 is locked at 60 unless you sort it out in the console. Its not a big deal. Its just that maybe, like me, you like to see your frame rates stupidly high all the times even though it wouldn't make any difference if they were locked at 60, like 1.6
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
I would go higher with your current Quad but if you are set on source games you might want to switch to ATI, they get higher framerates in most source games than comparable nVidia parts.

I honestly would just try to get to 3.6GHz on your current Quad and then see where you are, if you still aren't happy then you can upgrade but if you are satisfied then you save yourself like $250 towards something else
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Quote:


Originally Posted by linskingdom
View Post

Q6600 at 3.2G with 1.35v. Have you tried to push it a bit since 65nm has max 1.5vcore. I would try it first before decide what to do next.

probably the best idea.. i've got a aftermarket cooler i've yet to install for fear of static destroying the chip when im messign with it..

maybe ill get the balls to do it sometime and just OC farther... voltage is of no concern, i have plenty of headroom. 1.35 is just the highest i can go and keep my temps reasonable under 100% load.

Quote:


Originally Posted by CallmeRoth
View Post

sure the game and GPU will render 76 but your monitor cant display more than 60 anyways.

My monitors refresh rate is currently at 75 Hz..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MarineRevenge
View Post

probably the best idea.. i've got a aftermarket cooler i've yet to install for fear of static destroying the chip when im messign with it..

maybe ill get the balls to do it sometime and just OC farther... voltage is of no concern, i have plenty of headroom. 1.35 is just the highest i can go and keep my temps reasonable under 100% load.

My monitors refresh rate is currently at 75 Hz..

You will be happy with the new cooler, I can get to 3.8GHz with my temps in check, I honestly don't think I could tell my Q6600 at 3.8Ghz apart from a Q9550 at 4GHz. I only noticed a few FPS and more 3DMark06 points going from 3.2GHz to 3.8GHz
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,927 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineRevenge View Post
Sorry.. not ALL source games.. counter-strike : source..

it hates me and drops as low as 76 frames sometimes = unacceptable!

L4D scores 100+ at all times unless theres like 2 billion dudes on screen, which it drops to 50 at the lowest of times. This is all maxed with 2x AA and 4x AF...

anywho... CS:S which is the game i play more than any other gets terrible performance considering my rig... so i may* upgrade if the performance increase is worth it when considering perhaps a 3.6~ Ghz 45nm Quad.
i'm sorry but you're being ridiculous.

if you're going to pay $200+ for a few frames which you won't even feel or see... why not just drop the AA?

ah well, it's your money. all i know is that is a solid rig you have there and if it were me i'd be saving the money for something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Quote:

Originally Posted by CallmeRoth View Post
Fearing static is kinda for lack of better words "Noob". Just don't rub your feet on the floor and take care in what your doing.
Not "noob" but "newb", and if you think they mean the same thing, you are wrong.

I've never done it before and i'd like to not completely destroy my chip (as i have destroyed a mobo and chip when simply installing a new fan in the case a few years back, the case which means i was touching metal the entire time aka = grounded, and it still got fried..)

Sorry if im trying to be protective of my hardware and avoiding doing something for the first time in my life in case i cannot replace it, should something go wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,249 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineRevenge View Post
probably the best idea.. i've got a aftermarket cooler i've yet to install for fear of static destroying the chip when im messign with it..

maybe ill get the balls to do it sometime and just OC farther... voltage is of no concern, i have plenty of headroom. 1.35 is just the highest i can go and keep my temps reasonable under 100% load.

My monitors refresh rate is currently at 75 Hz..
I just sold my TT120 for $30 few hours ago. Yes. Got an after market and give it a try.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top