Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

spankyc

Honorable
Jun 3, 2012
73
0
10,630
I bought an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 and I have the Radeon 6670. At the time when I bought it I had a Core 2 Duo and it was the best GFX card for my cpu. Now that I have a quad core does this still apply or are there better cards? Also I have a 450 Antec PSU
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Max load system power consumption:

Core 2 q6600: 105w (more if you overclock it)
Motherboard + RAM: ~50w
case/cpu fans: 5w each (guessing 15w total)
HDD: 30w
Optical: 25w
6870: 163w

total: 388w.

For maximum efficiency on a PSU, you want to stay between 50% and 75% load. Staying under 75% rated wattage is for safety as well. The PSU loses wattage as it ages, and system power draw can sometimes spike above the numbers presented here.

For a 450w PSU, you want to stay under 338 watts at max load, which would be difficult to do outside of the 7000 line.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If you're trying to gauge usual usage no. But we're trying to determine a PSU's capability based on safety and efficiency. So using the maximum possible power draw is a much safer method.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

truly i do not mean to pick on you :
a motherbaord uses about 15 watts a stick of ram 8 watts each not 50 watts total more like 31.
a hard drive uses 10 watts to spin up but after that 5 watts.
optical is 8 watts; c'mon its only using a weak laser and spinning a dvd.

also a PSU does not lose wattage with age. cheaper low quality PSUs can lose efficiency but not wattage, that will remain constant until it fails. any capacitor aging garbage is complete mularky.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's absolutely nothing wrong with peaking over 75% power. Now you don't want to regularly have 6 hour gaming sessions at 80% usage, but typical 75% usage with peaks to 90% of deliverable power is perfectly fine for a PSU and what it's designed to do.
Thank you for setting the record straight.

I suppose if you have 5 HDDs, you may want to allow 30W for them. Other than that, your numbers are pretty accurate. An Antec 450W can handle a moderately overclocked Q6600 and 6870 no problem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


i just looked at the staples site and they sell the Antec VP 450W. i was looking at the BP 450 that has more on the 12 volt rails (22 each as opposed to 18 each for the VP)
the 6870 would be better and the 570 would be too much.

i am still waiting for the "you need 650 watts PSU for that" crowd to walk in . . 😛
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Haha...someone often throws crazy numbers like that out. A guy at work bought a 1000W PSU for his E6600 and GTX 460 768MB. It's a Kingwin, so it's probably not a total lemon, just not a PSU I'd buy.

I bet it could handle the 570 just fine. That said, I don't recommend it. I'd stick to any graphics card with a single 6-pin connector. So GTX 560 or 6870 are about as powerful as you get unless a 7850 drops into your price range. I'd say this PSU is a bit overrated as it says 360W on the +12V rails. By my count, I'd only call this a 400W PSU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
...I'm not suggesting he buy a psu that big. I'm suggesting he use a less power hungry video card to stay in a 450w PSU maximum efficiency range. You think that's crazy?

Those are peak usage numbers from various sites, including tom's hardware. They seem to be pretty close to one another, and to the max usage numbers I posted. (tom's would actually calculate the max usage higher than I did)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/power-supply-protection-calculate-consumption,3066.html
http://www.pctechbytes.com/hardware/computer-power-comsumption/
http://www.pcpower.com/technology/power_usage/

Why is it you think the max usage is so much lower?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Also I didn't say the PSU loses wattage over time. I'm not telling you what will happen. I'm Erring on the side of caution here. Knowing the particular model of Antec would help. Some are better able to handle higher % loads for a long time than others.

Actually, there's an old thread here now that I'm looking >.< the replies help more than the OP.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/300392-28-capacitor-aging

Most PSU's I've put in systems have deliverd rated power for long after some sites (the ones that claim a psu loses 5-10% efficiency a year) say they should fail.

However, Relying solely on anecdotal evidence is a path to failure, IMO.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh no, I wasn't saying your numbers were crazy. I was saying the 650W PSU looniam was joking about would be crazy. Nothing you've said has been ludicrous, merely overly conservative. I've been in threads where people get to talking about an 850W PSU for this guy--that would be crazy.

As far as this PSU with a 6870--I'm not talking about being right at the limit. I'm talking about something safe that still has some headroom:
Ivy i5 = ~110W when OC'd
6870 = 151W max (per Wikipedia
Everything Else = ~80W
TOTAL = ~340W

Realistically, you'll probably only see total system draw that high when overclocked while gaming or other intensive tasks. That's well under the 400W I credit the PSU with providing. Chances are, it'll be more like 270W while gaming and, if I'm wrong by 20W on one of those estimates, the PSU has plenty headroom left--especially if you credit it as a 450W PSU.

As far as my sources...that PCtechbytes website is horrendously out-of-date. Note that it lists Pentium III (circa Y2K) power draw. No SATA HDD from the last 5 years draws close to 20W. In fact, I'm not even sure HDDs from 2000 drew 20W. The same goes for that PCPower website. Most HDDs will stay well under 10W under max load: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/4tb-3tb-hdd,3183-15.html

I guess I don't really have an explanation for why the Tom's numbers were so odd on the page you linked. Anyhow...5 minutes ago, I ran Furmark (GPU w/ some CPU) and LinX (HEAVY CPU) simultaneously with my i7-2600K @ 4.5GHz + SLI'd GTS 250's (although one GTS 250 idles during Furmark), I hit 404W draw from the wall socket (via my Kill-A-Watt). If I assume 85% efficiency, then it's at 343W usage, which is very similar to what I suggest above. My i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) will use more power than his Ivy i5 ever will. And a GTS 250 has almost identical load draw to a 6870--although the idling one wastes about ~40W (old and inefficient low power mode).

I would run this same i7-2600K w/ a single GTS 250 setup on a Corsair CX430 or Antec VP450.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, I've heard "capacitor aging" as well. And I'm nearly certain I've read that thread you linked. I've discussed this with some people who know more than me about the idea behind that. Apparently, the original non-broken logic (as losing 10% capacity per year doesn't make sense) is that capacitors in high heat increases the chance for a capacitor to fail--so the more time you have your PSU getting really hot (e.g. under really heavy load), the greater chance you have of blowing a cap and the unit failing.

So really you want to leave some headroom between typical heavy usage (such as gaming) and the total capacity. So you'd want to only hit 75% during typical heavy gaming (try the Metro 2033 benchmark) with brief spikes to 90% or so. That should keep your PSU within normal operating temperatures so long as your case has decent air flow.

At least that's my take on it--and it least it sounds logical (let me know if you have more info if that interpretation sounds wrong).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FYI: I just checked my i7-2600K (@ 4.5GHz) + my GTX 570 (light OC) on a Kombustor (Furmark) + Linx simultaneous run. That gets 415W max from the wall, which should be about 353W from the PSU. So I'd expect a CX430 or VP450 to handle it, not that I'd recommend it.

Anyhow, a CX430 w/ Ivy Bridge i5 and 6870 should be just fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It'll "fit", but I'd definitely take one of those 6870's when they go on sale for $130 instead. It's not a typicaly 336 core GTX 560. It's a cut-down 288 core "SE" version--just so you don't get surprised. So that's about a 15% performance hit (assuming the same clock rates, which might not be the case).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom