Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

QX6850 or Q9550 which one, for the same price

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2007 1:38:48 PM

Building a new sustem and I have a chance to pick up a new QX6850 for less than $500...should I pick this up now, or wait and pick up a Q9450 for a little less. Will the QX6850 realy be that handycapped not being 45nm?

More about : qx6850 q9550 price

November 1, 2007 2:11:48 PM

QX6850?!?!? Really? For <$500? If you're 100% sure that it is operable absolutely go for it. That is the king of the modern processors. 45nm C2Ds and C2Qs are a little while off (and the initial release will be top-end very expensive units). You will never see this deal again (except years down the road on eBay). The processor retails above $1000. Just be sure you're not getting taken: remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2007 2:43:28 PM

(1) No way could you consider a Q6850 as Handicapped. And IF it's a real deal, then $500 is an incredible price. *IF* it's the real deal...

(2) The Q9450 is (a) basically a die shrink of the 6850 and (b) will be sold for well over $1K US. The chances of you getting one for $500 anytime soon that isn't stolen will be basically none.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2007 2:44:33 PM

not getting taken...just have friends who work for Intel...and it's their employee price. :) 

just didn't know about the performance thing. I don't think they will get a discount on the Penryns for a while.
November 1, 2007 4:19:07 PM

Personally, I don't think QX6850 for $500 is really a deal since the Q6600 can match it anyway. I'm not paying $250 more just so I don't need to adjust my own BIOS.

Now, if You want to pay $750 more than the Q6600 to get an extra 10% boot in performance and reduced heat output go for it.

a b à CPUs
November 1, 2007 4:21:17 PM

sorry about the numbers confusion. Basically I wanted to spend no more than $300 on a CPU. So either the q6600, or wait until January and pick up the q9450 for ~$319. (however, not believing the price until I see it in January). Then my buddy told me of the deal he can get...so I ordered the QX6850. I'm bummed that it's not 45nm, but for less than $500...can't really touch it for some time.
November 1, 2007 5:10:27 PM

I'm jealous, I must admit. Hell of a deal.
November 1, 2007 5:59:19 PM

that QX6850 does make sense to me somewhat. you're paying 66% more for a 25% stock-speed increase, but it overclockes on air higher than the Q6600. just make sure to overclock it and get some good air cooling :-)
a b à CPUs
November 2, 2007 5:07:41 PM

I ordered the Thermalright 120 extreme for cooling. Seemed to be as good up through 3.6GHz as water cooling. Since the QX6850 is unlocked I was going to play with some of the other overclocking abilities that the q6600 doesn't have.
November 2, 2007 5:26:01 PM

Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450 Q9450

Really though, I will wait until the price comes down to what it should be. Like < $400.
November 2, 2007 6:32:27 PM

Japps, look at me in the eye now - get the chip for 500 and sell it for 800! - there still above 1000 more or less everywhere.. and voila! you got 300 to get a slightly less powerful but still decent chip..
No?
Dingy dinghies.
November 2, 2007 6:44:39 PM

Ironnads said:
Japps, look at me in the eye now - get the chip for 500 and sell it for 800! - there still above 1000 more or less everywhere.. and voila! you got 300 to get a slightly less powerful but still decent chip..
No?
Dingy dinghies.


Now that's not very ethical. (But it's smart, so long as your friend doesn't find out [/sarcasm])
a b à CPUs
November 29, 2007 10:07:02 PM

yeah...I thought of the ebay/resale thing. I ended up building the system with the qx6850. Maximus Extreme, DDR3-1800, 8800gtx superclocked. Man, what an improvement over the AMD 3400 and 6800GT I had. This thing is actually pretty fast. I have the FSB set to 400Mhz, RAM set to 1600 with tighter CAS, and the CPU set to 3.2Ghz (8x400)
a c 127 à CPUs
November 30, 2007 2:06:25 AM

The Q9450 will come out for roughly $300USD. The QX6850 at $500 is not that bad since it will have a unlocked multipler so OC'ing will run pretty good.

But still the Q9450 wll be at 45nm, run much coller and OC better. Check out Toms OC'ing of the QX9650. They got it to 3.8GHz and got it to 1.35v which is the stock voltage of a QX6850. SO if you want something that will run coller and OC easier and better the Q9450 is the way to go.
January 13, 2008 3:12:11 AM

you should have gotten the q9550. it will be about $530 (actually about the same price as the 6850 you got) and suck on this:

Q9550
+
2 * 8800GTS 512mb
=
21,000 3DMarks

wow, i wonder how many you can get.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2008 1:32:15 PM

ahhh Ownage...I guess you can suck on this:

So the Q9550 isn't due to be released until March at the earliest. Plus the multiplier will be locked at 8x. So how can you get 3.6GHz? 8x450? that's a lot to put on the FSB and the northbridge chip. So the initial reports I'm reading suggest that either you run the Penryns at a slower clock speed, or push the northbridge to 450+. I'm running the QX6850 at 9x400. I get 14,000 in 3DMark06 running vista. Yes, if I had SLI I could get more, but I have a x38 board with a 8800gtx card.

and finally...I've had this computer running since mid November and have finished Crysis (all graphics on highest settings), HL2 episode 2, and played several other games. Yes, I could have waited until March for the q9550, but then by that logic I could wait until late this year to get the Nehalem.
January 14, 2008 2:14:23 PM

japps2 said:
yeah...I thought of the ebay/resale thing. I ended up building the system with the qx6850. Maximus Extreme, DDR3-1800, 8800gtx superclocked. Man, what an improvement over the AMD 3400 and 6800GT I had. This thing is actually pretty fast. I have the FSB set to 400Mhz, RAM set to 1600 with tighter CAS, and the CPU set to 3.2Ghz (8x400)


That's nice but you still are well with in Q6600 capabilities...Get on the stick! Maybe 3.8-4.0 on stable on air at decent temps. ;) 

jimmysmitty said:
They got it to 3.8GHz and got it to 1.35v which is the stock voltage of a QX6850. SO if you want something that will run coller and OC easier and better the Q9450 is the way to go.


The 45mm chips do run cooler and have a lower power need but they are also limited as to the max voltage that will fry the chip. 1.45v is comparable in stress to 1.55v on the 65mm chips...both are .05 over spec. There is always a trade off!

a b à CPUs
January 14, 2008 5:50:04 PM

yeah, I'm running it 24/7 now at 9x400. so 3.6 at 1.35v, CoreTemp has all 4 cores below 32C. Even after Crysis for 2 hours, core 1 & 2 are at 38C, core 3 & 4 are around 35C.
January 15, 2008 11:38:29 PM

$1600 or more for a CPU and GPU to get 14,000 3DMarks is not even close to comparing to $1160 for CPU and GPUs to get 21,400 3DMarks. And the Q9550 actually has a multiplier of 8.5, not 8. The test was performed with a stock cooler, and it ran in the mid to high 40's. I don't even plan to OC when I get one for myself, this processor could probably run in the extremely low 30's and still pull off an easy 15,000-16,000 3DMarks without overclocking.
January 16, 2008 12:34:43 AM

buy the qx6800 then sell it for about 800 then buy the other one lol.. then use the extra money for a good video card...
October 28, 2008 6:07:02 AM

Just felt like writing in here instead of opening up a new post considering someone talked about this a year ago i figured maybe someone can help me decide on this. I've been wanting to buy the Q9550 which runs at $320 on newegg. I have a friend who has a friend that has the QX6850 brand new never opened and he wants to sell me it for $300. Is it worth in any respects to get the QX6850 over the Q9550 considering i do plan on overclocking the **** out of either one. Any takers? Thanks greatly appreciate a response :bounce: 
February 16, 2009 4:56:08 AM

you should take the Q9550 as it has higher cache which is a 12 MB instead of a 8MB. it also has more features then the qx6850 and the 45nm technology produces less heat and would let you save power and have a more stable overclocking
February 16, 2009 9:01:54 PM

asd
!