q9550 vs q6600

[geeeeoffff1]

for gaming, do you guys think that the q9550 is worth the extra money?

i would wait for core i7 but my computer died today (seems to be a mobo problem)

 

[dragonsprayer]

E0 stepping for overclocking is good and worth it, as long as you have a fsb system that can run it.

 

[dirtmountain]

Go with the Q6600 if you are going to overclock it over 3.0, the Q9550 if you run stock or will only OC in the future.

 

[alvine]

q6600 and oc

 

[Guest]

no

go q9550 and overclock...

i've said this many times... the penryn (yorkfield) architecture is about 10 % faster than kentsfield... and the multiplier on the q9550 is 8.5 and the q6600 is 9

so a 400 fsb on a q9550 is equal to 3.4 ghz... on a q6600 thats 3.6 ghz

so since the yorkfield is faster by lets say 10 %.... you can multiply the frequency by 1.1 .... 3.4 multiplied by 1.1 is 3.74

also the q9550 runs cooler...

its just simply better

unless price is a factor in which case the q6600 MAY be the best option for you

 

[dagger]

no

go q9550 and overclock...

i've said this many times... the penryn (yorkfield) architecture is about 10 % faster than kentsfield... and the multiplier on the q9550 is 8.5 and the q6600 is 9

so a 400 fsb on a q9550 is equal to 3.4 ghz... on a q6600 thats 3.6 ghz

so since the yorkfield is faster by lets say 10 %.... you can multiply the frequency by 1.1 .... 3.4 multiplied by 1.1 is 3.74

also the q9550 runs cooler...

its just simply better

unless price is a factor in which case the q6600 MAY be the best option for you

If price is a factor q6600 is definitely the best option, given the $180-$340 difference (newegg price) means a $160 price gap, you can almost get 2 q6600 for one q9550.

For overclocking:
The 8.5 vs 9 multiplier difference is not significant unless it's for extreme oc. q9550 produce less heat due to smaller 45nm process, allowing it to oc higher than q6600 if cooling is limited. q6600 tolerates much higher vcore (Intel's official recommended vcore is up to 1.5v, where q9550 will burn out, even if kept ice cold), allowing it to oc higher than q9550 if giving enough cooling.

The 10% performance per ghz performance is with encoding averaged in. For gaming, it's far less than 10%, sometimes even zero. The 2 chips share identical architecture, the Yorkfield die shrink gives no performance gain in itself. Its larger L2 cache plus sse4 instruction makes up the difference. Only the newest encoding and professional programs benefits from sse4. Larger L2 cache is more useful, but already at a large 12mb, additional performance gain is small due to scaling, as typical tasks don't need so much. It's similar to having 4gb vs 8gb of ram.

If the rig is for encoding, q9550 may be worth the extra, as some benchmarks of sse4 enabled encoders show as much as 30% gain at the same clock rate.

If it's for gaming, it's not worth it, get q6600 and spend the difference on video card.

 

[aevm]

Dagger, very nice post, thank you. Here's a trophy for you. [:turpit:2]


I've said this before: Intel have shot themselves in the foot with the Q6600. It's so good, it makes it hard to sell the newer stuff that came after it. I bet they never expected that

 

[geeeeoffff1]

well i already have a video card(8800gt). and from what i read, putting 2 together in sli is kind of a waste

i'd probably just spend the difference on actual games

thanks for the input guys. i think i'm going with the q6600. i don't mind paying 150ish more for more fps but if the difference is tiny then it's kind of a waste.

 

[aevm]

8800GT SLI is not a waste. That is, if you have a 20" monitor or bigger, and your MB/PSU already support SLI, then you only need to spend $120 for the second card, and you get some massive increases in fps.

Watch this for example:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/734/8/
1920x1200, World in Conflict, DX 10 mode.
9800GX2 gets 40 fps (pretty good IMO)
9800GTX+ gets 24 fps (weak)
The 9800GX2 is very close to 8800GT SLI, while the 9800GTX+ is close to a single 8800GT.

I'm sure you can find reviews with 8800GT and 8800GT SLI if you google for them too. I just picked the first video card review in my bookmarks because it's past midnight here and I got to work tomorrow.

 

[cjl]

Dagger, very nice post, thank you. Here's a trophy for you. [:turpit:2]


I've said this before: Intel have shot themselves in the foot with the Q6600. It's so good, it makes it hard to sell the newer stuff that came after it. I bet they never expected that

I would say the 9550 is worth it for very CPU intensive stuff - it's a great CPU. My friend just got one, and I was stunned to see it running flat out on 1.08v - it's great for running cool and very low power, while still flattening a stock 6600. It's true that it isn't that much faster overclocked than the 6600 is (though it still maintains an advantage), but depending on the application, it should definitely be considered. Of course, the applications in question for my friend were Matlab and Solidworks, not games.

 

[aevm]

Well, OK, and then you have corporations that don't even allow overclocking, for various reasons (stability, legal, time spent messing with BIOS and testing). For them the Q9550 is better, IMO. For example my own IT guy refuses to overclock or to let me overclock, so they got me a Q6700. That was when a Q6700 used to cost twice as much as a Q6600

 

[englandr753]

Unless you have the extra money to throw around, go for the Q6600. If you do have the extra money then buy the Q6600 and paypal to me the difference and I will get a 2nd Q6600 to go into my media center pc.

Deal?

 

[geeeeoffff1]

err.. right

onto motherboards. can you guys recommend one to me? it's pretty hard to decide, there are so many choices

i like asus but i'm okay with using other brands. i'd like to keep it under 150 but i could go a little over if it's worth it.

 

[englandr753]

I would go with Gigabyte if not ASUS...

 

[teh_boxzor]

don't leave out ASrock they're starting to come up in quality.

 

[rahul_cracker]

Hi
i myself have just purchased a Q6000 and a gigabyte P35 board with a cheap palit 2400 HD series with 4 gb(800 Mhz ) ram and its giving a good performance as per the price.I wolud really say not to waste money on the cpu for 10+ fps advantage.Just give the difference to the GPU or a games.Gigabyte board's are also nice better than the ASUS current series

 

[geeeeoffff1]

wow, there are a lot of asus ang gigabyte boards. what else should i look for in a board?

 

[Grimmy]

Heh.. I'd recommend the DFI P35 DK. It's pretty nice, works great for my needs.

DFI LANPARTY DK P35-T2RS LGA 775 Intel P35

But if your tring to make ends meet on a budget, the other recommended MBs are fine. Also if your looking for SLI, the only option on these non-sli MBs are the X2 GPUs, which some day I might get the 4870 X2... Just so I can use the extra power cords dangling in my PC case.

 

[geeeeoffff1]

i guess i trust the asus name more than DFI. i haven't really heard of dfi until today

 

[Grimmy]

Then what are you waiting for? Just get the Asus.

 

[geeeeoffff1]

lol, well i've at least heard of gigabyte


plus there are a lot of asus boards to choose from,

 

[Grimmy]

Here:

DFI Infinity P35 Blood-Iron Overclocking Test

That's basically the older version when the P35 chipset came about. That review was based on the Q6700. It just offers allot more options when OC'ing.

It's basically a nice MB for Non-Sli.

 

[Hellboy]

Hey the cheapest option is to go for the Q6600 get a reasonable board. Gigabyte P35 -DSR3 chipset will do and wait for the i7

Over clock it to 3 GHZ by uprating the FSB to 333MHz and enjoy...

 

[englandr753]

DFI was a good brand, probably still is. For some reason I dont see many of those boards available at Microcenter or Frys Electronics but they dont mind carrying ECS which is beyond me...

 

[mi1ez]

My Asus P5K-e Wifi is stable as anything at huge FSB speeds.

Definitely go P35 and check how OCable any boards you think of are, might also be worth researching the BIOS options for usability and thoroughness.

After that I guess it's down to features and price.