hey everyone, new user here from aussie.

i recently built my new Q6600 rig and im kind of disappointed in its performance, or maybe i expected too much of a change from my previous AM2 x2 4600 system.

case =  CM 690
psu =  Corsair VX 450w
mobo = gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3P (2.1)
cpu = Q6600 @ 2.4ghz 

(going for 3.0ghz)
ram = 3gb generic (samsung chip) pc6400/800mhz
dvd = asus DRW-2014L1T Sata Light-Scribe
hdd 1 = west digital 250gb Sata2 16mb
hdd 2 = samsung 500gb Sata2 16mb
gpu = sapphire HD2400Pro 512mb/64bit (soon to be

x1950pro 512)
monitor = 22" black mitsubishi diamond pro
keyboard = logitech elite
mouse = logitech mx400
speakers = logitech Z-340 2.1ch
Win XP Pro sp2

Anyway, i have CPU EIST disabled in my bios because i want this cpu at 2.4ghz all the time,  but in many day to day program use this cpu doesnt get much over 20 to 30% total cpu usage in task manager, even if im not doing anything else on the pc, and i assumed these quads would run at pretty much peak usage in any given application if its not required to run multiple tasks at one time, meaning the less you flog the cpu, the better/faster it will carry out solo tasks.

I see about 80 to 90% cpu usage in TMPGEnc xpress 4.0 when being used on its own, but programs like photoshop elements 6.0 and dvd ripping with dvdfab platinum barely gets over 30% cpu usage.

Elements 6.0 on this Q6600 is actually slower than my old Elements 4.0 was for some reason, its actually a dog to be honest, and i dont know why version 6.0 would be slower than version 4.0 with the same cpu. 

i know my previous x2 4600 was 2.4ghz per core just like this Q6600 is, but i just assumed this Q6600 would be better than it was with the 4600+ cpu and its not, except in video encoding with tmpgenc, which is dramatically faster.

am i expecting too much from this cpu ???

cheers and thanks. 



The CPU is good... and I don't think that they are designed to run at full power for ANY application, whether it be just one or a combination.

What were your previous system specs? You say that your computer is now slower but i'm wondering if you had a downgrade in other components of your system when you switched over to an intel config.


willardcw4 wrote:

What were your previous system specs?

i had a GA-M55SLI-S4 mobo with x2 4600 cpu and 2gb ddr2 533 ram

willardcw4 wrote:

You say that your computer is now slower but i'm wondering if you had a downgrade in other components of your system when you switched over to an intel config.

no definately no downgrade, but i didnt say the new pc is slower, most apps are no faster to open than before, elements 6.0 runs like shit, but maybe thats an issue with elements 6.0 over 4.0, and i just assumed that the Q6600 would be more efficient and be utilised more especially if im only using the pc for 1 thing at a time and not multi tasking.

personally the only gain over my 4600 is with video encoding, its definately faster for sure, but i wish now i did get an E8400 or even used one of the E6850 oem engineering sample cpu's i recently bought and ended up using in a few gaming rigs i built.

maybe i expected too much, i dunno :( 


Are you running 3 sticks of RAM, 1GB per stick?

This might not be the same problem, but I will tell you my experience troubleshooting my roommate's PC:

We have 2x 2GB of RAM. BSODs with both sticks. I removed one stick and the PC is SLOW. I mean the stuff that shows on the boot screen was as if someone was typing very slow. Like each letter of a word would show up every second. Anyways, I put that one stick of RAM in another slot and the PC booted up normally. So there is at least 1 bad RAM slot that we have identified. We haven't tested the others with 1 stick yet.


Might be worth it to fiddle around with your RAM. 


RyuGTX wrote:

Are you running 3 sticks of RAM, 1GB per stick?


yes i bought 4x 1gb sticks of generic (samsung chip) 800 ram but only use 3x sticks right now because im using XP Pro 32bit.

the other stick will go in when/if i ever get a 64bit operating system (definately will not be vista i know that, nor XP 64bit)

i know this issue is not my ram because i have tested every slot, i put in the 4 sticks, 3 sticks in various configurations, and even ran 2 sticks for a while and nothing has changed with the performance of the pc overall.

maybe i had too many expectations, but one assumes the cpu would run at a much more usage rate (like 80 to 90%) if its not being utilised running more than 1 application, but apart from tmpgenc, this cpu runs at 20 to 30% over 4 cores in all other apps i run, and apart from video encoding speeds, i see and feel no difference between my old x2 4600 cpu and this one.

as i said, i wish i had got a good dual core instead, for now at least.



quad core > dual core IMO... you can easily push that Q6600 to 3.0 GHz without much effort as long as your ram is decent (i'd stick it around 2.7 GHz for starters and to check stability). As long as you have a decent cpu heatsink (or are getting decent temps), i'd say you could get a bit more juice from your cpu.

I recently installed the Q6600 on my dad's computer. I have an E6600. Both of our CPUs have been overclocked to 3GHz... trust me, Q6600>E6600.

I do think you had a misconception about the function of the processors... it will run as high as it has to, and no higher. Most likely, if there is a bottleneck in your system, its NOT your procsessor.

Also, I would leave all 4GB of your ram in your computer. I took a stick out of mine and memtest (testing memory stability) would crash after about an hour. I have found, in my experience, dual channel ram works better with both channels per kit filled (i.e. 2 sticks or 4 sticks total).



If you use only 3 sticks instead of 4 it is from the start a bottleneck because the RAM runs instead of Dual channel mode,in Single channel mode!



How exactly are you benchmarking your cpu with the programs you mentioned?

Also, there is nothing wrong if your program(s) don't utilize almost all of your cpu. Look at it this way, this cpu is more efficient and powerful so it doesn't have to utilize as much as your old one.

I think you said that if a program used more of the cpu, it would run faster. Maybe the program wasn't designed to even if there is free cpu cycles. Somewhat related, Microsoft tried to do this with Vista using RAM. Only thing that happened is that people complained about Vista being a resource hog. From my knowledge, I think Vista is the few (or first) to try and utilize "wasted/idle" resources. I don't think you should blame your cpu.

Users browsing this topic