SuperNet33 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Right now I have an E6420 Core 2 Duo , but I was thinking of upgrading to the Q6600. Will I have to do anything special to my system, to boot it up or anything with osx? Right now everything is working PERFECT... I would like to keep it like that... or should I wait until something new comes out that is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankOS_Scripting Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Go ahead with the quad core. That's the best way to get higher performance and it is more smoother on OS X and Windows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperNet33 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Will it mess with my current install at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperNet33 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 I mean, will it break anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven2k7 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I have a q6600 on my hackintosh, and it works fine, I didnt have to do anything special to go get it to work. I wouldnt think you would have to change anything, or have it mess up your install if you upgrade it, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazevedo317 Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 i had a core2duo in my hack and all i did was swap out and put in the Q6600 and it worked perfectly. BIG performance increase and amazing stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclau Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Have absolutely no problem with Q6600 for nearly 8 months... The question is what extra benefit do you get with a Q6600? Comparing the 2 systems on my sig below, I really could not tell any difference in performance between the two, even on demanding apps like VMware Fusion, Vuze, dvd burning... In fact, the e7200 when overclocked to 3.6Ghz runs noticably faster, I mean really very much faster, than the Q6600 overclocked to 3.2 GHz. Of course, the difference might be due to the different type of RAM in my systems. For Q6600, Activity Monitor actually shows 3 out the 4 cores are idle almost at all time... Do take note also the power consumption of Q6600 is higher at 95W while that of e7200 is 65W. So, I think a C2D is good enough for my purpose. If you have a good motherboard and good RAM, your system will scream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaap Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 eclau- I've noticed exactly the same thing, in fact, with an e7200 in particular. I think it may be a combo of several factors- the newer 45nm processors are a newer/faster architecture, and Leopard and many OSX apps aren't really utilizing all 4 cores of the Q6600, so a similar clock speed C2D will seem just as fast. The only thing is, I had problems with the e7200 and vanilla kernel. (Clock errors). Do you use the the modbin kernel to avoid clock errors, or is there some other fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbetts Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 For multitasking and things like video editing, the Q6600 is nice, but it's getting on with it's age, and hard to compete against the new E7 and E8 series, when the 2 series can clock up to 4 ghz. Now, the biggest problem is, they do have 45nm quad core cpus out, but the prices on them are ridiculously high. You won't get as much performance on the q6600, but you'll get a quad core experience none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclau Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 eclau- I've noticed exactly the same thing, in fact, with an e7200 in particular. I think it may be a combo of several factors- the newer 45nm processors are a newer/faster architecture, and Leopard and many OSX apps aren't really utilizing all 4 cores of the Q6600, so a similar clock speed C2D will seem just as fast. The only thing is, I had problems with the e7200 and vanilla kernel. (Clock errors). Do you use the the modbin kernel to avoid clock errors, or is there some other fix? I am using vanilla kernel. In fact, what I did was restoring my os x partition on my Q6600 machine to a partition on another hard disk, then install Chameleon on it, and finally boot it on my e7200 machine. Works like a charm... Only issue is Temperature Monitor is unable to detect the sensors on e7200. That's why I am running it at 3.2 GHz, even though it is rock solid at 3.6 GHz. If I can find out the temperature at 3.6 GHz and if that is not too high, I will definitely run it at 3.6 GHz. I've no Windows installation to find out the temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaap Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I am using vanilla kernel. In fact, what I did was restoring my os x partition on my Q6600 machine to a partition on another hard disk, then install Chameleon on it, and finally boot it on my e7200 machine. Works like a charm... So no clock drift or other errors? Does using Chameleon somehow fix these errors on the 45nm chips, or it's only an issue with some setups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts