Intel Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz > AMD FX-6350 @ 3.9 GHz?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790
I usually run my new and old builds through some benchmarks for comparisons. I was not expecting Firestrike to produce a better score for the old OC'ed C2Q than the newer 6 core Vishera.

Both were using the same GTX 960 gfx card, the Vsihera had 8GB DDR3 @ 2133 MHz and the C2Q had 8GB DDR3 @ 1280 MHz. Is Firestrike trustworthy?

I'm running some game benchmarks now to get some confirmation...

Edit: Forgot to post the Firestrike results...
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/6000853/fs/4975069
 
Solution
clutchc
Yes. My OC'ed FX-6350 indeed outperforms my OC'ed Q9550 in games. But I was just surprised that the 3.4 GHz C2Q could keep up with even the stock 3.9 Ghz FX-6350.

I ran some other buit-in game benchmarks and they somewhat agree with the Firestrike results. Bioshock Inf, Hitman Abs, Tomb Raider, Metro 2033 all fall within a 2 fps difference in avg frame rates when run with identical settings. Metro LL was one that was considerably faster with the stock FX-6350 (+8 fps)

@ Ironsounds
They both garner a WEI score of 7.4 for "Processor".
Sort by date Sort by votes
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890
Benchmarks, just like games, often favor one CPU or GPU architecture over others, hence the need to benchmark multiple titles to get the bigger picture and general trends. The FX-8350 manages to beat the i7-4790k in some heavily threaded benchmarks, yet the i3-3220 manages to beat the FX-8350 overclocked to 5GHz in lightly threaded games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790


That would seem to indicate that 3DMark's Firestrike is not all that trustworthy. Later I will post the other benchmarks I have between the two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
InvalidError

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
May 18, 2007
23,815
5,265
108,890

Benchmarks are only representative of similarly coded software. How "trustworthy" a benchmark is depends entirely on how similar your preferred software is to the benchmarks you used, hence the need to look for benchmarks that are representative of the type of software you are most interested in.

If you pick the wrong benchmarks to represent the type of workloads you intend to actually run on the system, you end up with garbage results regardless of how 'trustworthy' the benchmark might generally be.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

Cryio

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
881
0
19,160
My FX 6300 blew my old Q9550 out of the water on all games. I could never overclock my Q9550 because of my MOBO or old ram probably, but with the my FX 6300 sitting at 4.5 GHz, there is no comparison.

The FX is close to 50% faster in everything.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
clutchc

clutchc

Titan
Ambassador
Apr 22, 2009
43,150
411
131,790
Yes. My OC'ed FX-6350 indeed outperforms my OC'ed Q9550 in games. But I was just surprised that the 3.4 GHz C2Q could keep up with even the stock 3.9 Ghz FX-6350.

I ran some other buit-in game benchmarks and they somewhat agree with the Firestrike results. Bioshock Inf, Hitman Abs, Tomb Raider, Metro 2033 all fall within a 2 fps difference in avg frame rates when run with identical settings. Metro LL was one that was considerably faster with the stock FX-6350 (+8 fps)

@ Ironsounds
They both garner a WEI score of 7.4 for "Processor".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom