I build a new unit every 4-7 years. I do not care about cost when I do it. Looking for something too get me buy in my time span. Do a lot of video and burning dvd's. I looking at the QX9650 or the E 8500, which one is going too get what I want. Like I said money is not the problem, more money than brains.LOL. I just want a fast unit that will last for years. I could always OC the chips too gain speed if needed. Seems that the E8500 is close too the same benchmarks as the QX9650, for most things. The e8500 is a third of the price, if you had a lot of money and no brains what would you buy?
What is right for me QX9650-E8500
- Thread starter zplugger
- Start date
JuiceJones
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2006
- 268
- 0
- 18,780
This shouldn't be a question of QX9650 vs. E8500, rather QX9650 vs. Q9450 as Jaguar stated. Since you're looking for a future worthy rig and work with video, rule out dual core. Since you're willing to overclock, the QX will get you to the highest possible speed, but it's totally silly when you consider some 4 years down the line a 300Mhz speed difference won't be meaningful at all and bargain bin CPUs are more powerful.
4-7 years is a long life span for a computer, buying a QX now is more or less just being nice to Intel. I'd rather you be nice to me and send me a Q9300
If I had lots of money and "no brains", or rather, little computer knowledge, the best bet is probably to just buy a 2K Dell every three years or so. Keeps you on top of the game much, much better than splurging some 5K and keeping it 4-7 years. Two years from now, I'll have a better comp I built on the cheap than the one you splurge on today, so keep that in mind as well, and definitely go with the Quad.
4-7 years is a long life span for a computer, buying a QX now is more or less just being nice to Intel. I'd rather you be nice to me and send me a Q9300
If I had lots of money and "no brains", or rather, little computer knowledge, the best bet is probably to just buy a 2K Dell every three years or so. Keeps you on top of the game much, much better than splurging some 5K and keeping it 4-7 years. Two years from now, I'll have a better comp I built on the cheap than the one you splurge on today, so keep that in mind as well, and definitely go with the Quad.
If you were to read the CPU charts and use even a small fragment of your brain, you would notice that the QX9650 outperforms the E8500 by a very small margin in some applications and actually underperforms it in a few. The difference (either way) is around 2%, and they had to run applications that process huge files or run for over a minute to even show that difference.
So, why not save $700 now, get a system that is plenty for your needs now? You can use it on video card(s), new programs, games, chicks , etc.
There is a LOT of FUD going around on these forums that the current quads are more "future proof" than a dual core. This is just plain BS.
However, if you are set on getting the QX9650, then just get it!
So, why not save $700 now, get a system that is plenty for your needs now? You can use it on video card(s), new programs, games, chicks
, etc.There is a LOT of FUD going around on these forums that the current quads are more "future proof" than a dual core. This is just plain BS.
However, if you are set on getting the QX9650, then just get it!
JuiceJones
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2006
- 268
- 0
- 18,780
DXRick :
There is a LOT of FUD going around on these forums that the current quads are more "future proof" than a dual core. This is just plain BS.
This is just plain BS. You seriously think four years down the line, a dual core will still hang with a quad? Look a couple years back, socket 939 X2 comps are still perfectly capable systems, while single cores are fading into obscurity. The software industry is moving toward multithreaded optimizations, because, gasp! that's where the hardware is heading.
He stated he deals with video:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272&p=10
Q9300 and Q6600 blow the higher clocked E8200 out of the water in high def encoding, and this trend will only continue.
Any time someone's building a budget gaming comp, presumably to be upgraded within a couple years time frame, dual cores are the way to go. In this guy's particular case, with his fat wallet and intention to keep it four years and dealing with video, quad is the obvious recommendation.
bf2gameplaya
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2008
- 262
- 0
- 18,780
Not one of you gave this guy the proper advice:
You pick your most used current applications, and then the one or two applications that you won't run until you get your new gear and then build your rig around the applications and their performance buckets.
It's about the applications performance, not the hardware. the hardware is incidental.
You pick your most used current applications, and then the one or two applications that you won't run until you get your new gear and then build your rig around the applications and their performance buckets.
It's about the applications performance, not the hardware. the hardware is incidental.
I agree with you bf2gameplaya. For example I pretty much just play the Battlefield series of games, the Orange Box games, and I might even pick up Bionic Commando cuz I've been plumb plain crazy about it from back in the NES days, but that's just me.
What I have right now works great for me at this point. I would love to get a Quad SLI setup, Quad core CPU, new Mobo, 1.3Kw PSU, 8 Gigs of ram and RAID 0 some SSD's, but what would be the point? Yeah I'd have killer performance, but I'd never use any of that to the full potential and by the time I did there would be things out there that would be 9 times faster and alot cheaper too. 300FPS in BF2 isn't going to do much for me considering I get well over 100FPS right now. So until something comes out that I "have to have" and love to play it'd basically be a waste of money to change anything unless I have to.
My point is simply to get what you're going to use and not what you might use "eventually". I know money isn't much to the OP, but there's no sense in blowing money out the window on components that won't ever be fully utilized. Quad cores are more future ready than dual cores in the OP's instance because of what he'll be doing with the CPU and that he'll probably have it for another 4-7 years. So it makes sense to spend a little extra.
I'd suggest something in the middle of the quads like a Q9450 or Q9550. More expensive than an e8500, but the quads would be better for the video IO stuff that the OP is mostly going to use it for. Video work is much more CPU dependant that most other tasks so a quad makes sense. However spending much more on a higher end quad (like a QX) won't really make that much of a difference in performance.
Here's a nice little review of the most popular Q's out there. http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2521
What I have right now works great for me at this point. I would love to get a Quad SLI setup, Quad core CPU, new Mobo, 1.3Kw PSU, 8 Gigs of ram and RAID 0 some SSD's, but what would be the point? Yeah I'd have killer performance, but I'd never use any of that to the full potential and by the time I did there would be things out there that would be 9 times faster and alot cheaper too. 300FPS in BF2 isn't going to do much for me considering I get well over 100FPS right now. So until something comes out that I "have to have" and love to play it'd basically be a waste of money to change anything unless I have to.
My point is simply to get what you're going to use and not what you might use "eventually". I know money isn't much to the OP, but there's no sense in blowing money out the window on components that won't ever be fully utilized. Quad cores are more future ready than dual cores in the OP's instance because of what he'll be doing with the CPU and that he'll probably have it for another 4-7 years. So it makes sense to spend a little extra.
I'd suggest something in the middle of the quads like a Q9450 or Q9550. More expensive than an e8500, but the quads would be better for the video IO stuff that the OP is mostly going to use it for. Video work is much more CPU dependant that most other tasks so a quad makes sense. However spending much more on a higher end quad (like a QX) won't really make that much of a difference in performance.
Here's a nice little review of the most popular Q's out there. http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2521
Well, it really depends on the programs he intends to run. Most of the CPU charts here show the E8500 very near the QX9650 in performance. The Anandtech article shows the E8200, which is 20% slower than the E8500.
He could save the $700 difference now and always upgrade to a quad in the future for a lot less. In four years that $700 could be used to upgrade to a new system that is a LOT faster than one with a QX9650.
As a computer programmer, I understand the limits of multithreaded programming. It is not a pancea.
I have to disagree, as far as I am aware, a vast majority of video related applications are multithreaded and do perform much better with a quad core. The 9650 is very highly priced, so go for a lower down quad and clock it up. at the end of the day Intel aren't just the kings because they're faster out of the box, It's because of how well they overclock. For lots of video work, buy a cheaper quad, clock it and enjoy.
I would pick the quad and the Q9450 is starting to drop in price...($300)
http://www.slickdeals.net/?nojs=1
http://www.slickdeals.net/?nojs=1
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
Latest posts
-
Question Nvidia RTX 4060 windows night light is reset constantly
- Latest: ohio_buckeye
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram