Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

E8600 vs. Q9650

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 28, 2008 8:16:53 PM

HI. I am building a new system for myself and I am seeking some input on the my choice of processor. My choices currently are the E8600 and the Q9650. I will want to do some mild overclocking so which choice is best? I also want to know if there are advantages to the quad core over the dual core. The main use for my computer will be Creative Suite 4...mostly Photoshop. I will also be doing some light gaming. Any advice will be appreciated.

More about : e8600 q9650

October 28, 2008 8:33:02 PM

might want to read one of the other 24872879629765 threads asking EXACTLY the same......

single/dualcore programs get the E8600
multicore programs get the Q9650

end of story...
October 28, 2008 9:58:54 PM

well considering price wise,get the Q9550 instead which yields better performance overall for only $50 more than the E8600.In case price isnt the issue here.Q9650 hands down,there's no point investing in a duo core at this point,especially for the top of duo core line-e8600.
Related resources
October 28, 2008 10:12:10 PM

i think photoshp can take advantage of multiple cores... so q9650

your doing mild overclocking? than q9550. its $200+ cheaper, and you get the same performance when overclocking... spend the $200 on something else, maybe a bigger monitor?
a c 309 à CPUs
October 28, 2008 10:33:31 PM

If you are considering a quad costing over $300, have patience, and wait for nehalem in November. The entry 920 2.66 cpu @$300+ will best any other quad out there today.
October 28, 2008 10:42:33 PM

Thanks for the advice.

Godiwa, I didn't see the other 24872879629765 threads asking for advice on which of the two processors I should purchase, but I am sure that there are other posts asking about the differences between dual and quad core processors.

tim and eklipz, thank you. I will go with a quad core now and you have given me more to think about. My understanding now is that I can achieve the same clock speeds by overclocking the Q9550 and save money at the same time. Cool. Is it possible to hit close to 4GHZ on air with the Q9550? I know that is a little more than "mild" overclocking, but is it possible? How are the multipliers on the Q9550 and Q9650? Thanks again.

Godiwa, before you respond again, I am sure there are other threads that go into detail about the Q9550, q9650, and the overclockability potential of them....I just really don't want to read thread after thread right now to find the exact answer I am looking for. Thanks for your concern.
October 28, 2008 10:49:25 PM

geofelt said:
If you are considering a quad costing over $300, have patience, and wait for nehalem in November. The entry 920 2.66 cpu @$300+ will best any other quad out there today.


In what way? Specifics? Any links to articles?
October 28, 2008 10:54:01 PM

an easy and mostly accurate rule of thumb is that the major MOBO manufacturers (ASUS, Gigabyte etc) have presets that will OC your CPU 20%. It's eay, leave everything on "auto" and select "turbo" or whatever the MOBO manufacturer calls it. To give you any advice on higher clock speeds and cooling we would need to know what case (I can get my e8400 to 3.9ghz on air) and what heatsink you are thinking about purchasing. Or just say "give me suggestions".

Most of us enjoy this stuff so it is not a problem.
October 28, 2008 11:00:20 PM

geofelt said:
If you are considering a quad costing over $300, have patience, and wait for nehalem in November. The entry 920 2.66 cpu @$300+ will best any other quad out there today.




That depends on what he wants to spend on a complete system. i7 are definately better (intital test show a 15%-30% improvement over comparable cpu's) but from initial info the x58 mobo will start around $300 and require DDR3. There are, apparently, some issues with running the performance DDR3 RAM on the new boards.

My recommendation would depend on your budget and how quickly you want thsi done. Even after release the i7 will be difficult to get for 1-3 months.
October 28, 2008 11:00:36 PM

If you are starting from scratch, why not choose the phenom 9950 for less then 200 bucks? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... I think AMD lets you OC a few cores at a time for apps that aren't threaded for 4 cores. And if you do find something that uses all 4, then all the better for having a quad core.
October 28, 2008 11:03:37 PM

I would like to wait for the Nehalem, but that would mean investing in a new motherboard and more than likely DDR3 memory. As far as my present motherboard is concerned, I have a XFX 780i. I don't really recall seeing anything in my bios that does an auto OC, but I could be wrong. I am also not sure if I can overclock quite as much with my board as a board with an Intel chipset. With my current E8400 (non E0 stepping), I have a hard time going past 400fsb.....limited to 9 x multiplier. But it runs great at 3600mhz!
October 28, 2008 11:09:01 PM

Current case is Thermaltake Armor. It has a tons of fans including a large one on the side. I currently have an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7, but I have also considered upgrading to a Zalman, Tuniq Tower, or Zerotherm Nirvana.....or other suggestions?

I would consider a Phenom as well, but I am not going from scratch. I am building a computer for my son out of some existing parts that I have while putting together a little faster machine for myself.
October 28, 2008 11:38:48 PM

Um... you have an E8400 that you can run well at 3.6... What am I missing here? obviously the ability to read :bounce:  . Are you not able to run the apps that you want? I really don't see a huge gain to be had from another duel core. If you want to be "future proof" then you could always put that money aside and in a year or so when they start to phase out the current quad core 775 chips, you could pick one up on the cheap and extend the life of your system.

After reading your last line about parting out your computer in the process of making another, then yes it does make since to buy a new CPU. E8500's are pretty inexpensive at the moment. If you have the extra cash, the quad core for 300 bucks isn't a bad way to go. Just my opinion.
October 29, 2008 12:03:01 AM

I have not one problem with my 8400 except that my son needs a computer for school. I am taking another case that I have (Thermaltake Matrix), another motherboard that I have (ASUS P5B-Deluxe), another power supply that I have (Thermaltake 430 Watt Pure Power), another graphics card that I have (EVGA 7900GS KO), another set of RAM that I have (2GB Corsair PC2 6400), and other parts to build him a machine. The only thing I lack is a second processor. That's where the 8400 comes in. That leaves me to buy a new one for my machine. Are you with me? I could buy another 8400 and take it even further with E0 stepping, or I could buy an 8600, or I could buy a quad which is what I really want to do. From what I have read with these posts and elsewhere, the quads also now have E0 stepping and I could easily overclock one and still be somewhat future proof.
October 29, 2008 12:19:50 AM

Yea,Quads are sure th way to go at this point,with a Q9550,4 Ghz is pretty much doable with decent cooling with the new EO stepping,while Q9650 has the potenial going up to 4.2-4.5 Ghz depends on a bit of luck there,so it's pretty much the same like the E8600 with usually oc to 4.5 Ghz,but really anything above 4GHz is too good to be had for anything that you might be doing with your computer,so having 2 extra cores surely will give you overall a much better system for now or the future.
October 29, 2008 12:27:40 AM

angelsfanatic said:


tim and eklipz, thank you. I will go with a quad core now and you have given me more to think about. My understanding now is that I can achieve the same clock speeds by overclocking the Q9550 and save money at the same time. Cool. Is it possible to hit close to 4GHZ on air with the Q9550? I know that is a little more than "mild" overclocking, but is it possible? How are the multipliers on the Q9550 and Q9650? Thanks again.



Regarding your question here,Q9550 has a multiplier of 8.5 and Q9650 has a multiplier of 9.
October 29, 2008 3:53:48 AM

For some reason I was hoping for a multiplier of 10 on the Q9650, but I guess I would need the extreme version for that. For some reason I can't get past 400 with my motherboard (XFX 780i). But, 3600mhz on a quad core should be just fine....even 3400mhz for the Q9550 would be okay. It would definitely save me some dough. Thanks again.
a c 309 à CPUs
October 29, 2008 4:12:10 PM

angelsfanatic said:
I have not one problem with my 8400 except that my son needs a computer for school. I am taking another case that I have (Thermaltake Matrix), another motherboard that I have (ASUS P5B-Deluxe), another power supply that I have (Thermaltake 430 Watt Pure Power), another graphics card that I have (EVGA 7900GS KO), another set of RAM that I have (2GB Corsair PC2 6400), and other parts to build him a machine. The only thing I lack is a second processor. That's where the 8400 comes in. That leaves me to buy a new one for my machine. Are you with me? I could buy another 8400 and take it even further with E0 stepping, or I could buy an 8600, or I could buy a quad which is what I really want to do. From what I have read with these posts and elsewhere, the quads also now have E0 stepping and I could easily overclock one and still be somewhat future proof.

Your initial post said that you wanted to build a new computer, with no mention that you already had all the parts, save a cpu. If you do lots of heavy cpu bound multitasking, a quad is good. If you play FSX or supreme commander, a Quad is good. If you are willing to spend the bucks to get a quad that is clocked at 3.0 or higher, you can play any game out there. Otherwise, the E8500 is a good value. To assess how much clockspeed you need, underclock for a while, and see how much it hurts or does not hurt. At equal clockspeed, a quad is better than a duo. The problem is that it costs more to get that equivalent clock speed.
a c 309 à CPUs
October 29, 2008 4:25:06 PM

bigmjh said:
In what way? Specifics? Any links to articles?

An early(june) set of tests with nehalem from anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...
Tom's july:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-nehalem-core,news-2...
Entry price of $284 for 1000 unit trays is well documented.

X58 motherboard prices are unknown. Fear is that they will be high. There is apparently lots of competition, though, so that will help.

DDR3 prices are coming down. Extrapolate 3 stick prices from current prices for 1.5v ram kits with 2 sticks.
October 29, 2008 10:11:37 PM

You're right. In the first post of this thread, I stated that I am building a new computer. I was just looking for advice on the processor. I am still thinking about upgrading other components in the not so distant future so it will be kind of like a new computer for me. I am looking at a Velociraptor to replace the Raptors I currently have in RAID 0 and I am also looking at upgrading to 8GB of PC2 8500 to replace the 4GB of PC2 6400 I am currently running.....I work with a lot of large files simultaneously in Photoshop.

Eventually I will build an entirely new system once the I 7's have been out for a while and all the kinks with the processor, motherboards, and RAM have been worked out. One benefit once the new motherboards are out will be the Intel chipsets being SLI compatible. I have read that Nvidia Chips are not as easily overclocked. I am going to start saving $200-300 a month (if my wife lets me) and hopefully I will be able to build something nice in about a year. I really would like to purchase some more games and have some playing them with my son.

Are there any drawbacks to having a quad core processor? If a program does not support quad core, won't the program still run as well on two of the cores?

Thanks for the input and advice.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2008 11:24:54 AM

I find this a simple question:

First off, i7 doesn't show much improvement over quads in non-multithread apps, which means most games wont take most of i7's advantages for a while. Throw in the cost of a X58 and Tri-DDR3, and a i7 system becomes much more expensive.

Would you perfer a Q9650 with a 4870X2, or a i7 with a 8800GT? Both setups would be around the same price (once you factor in Mobo and RAM). Funny thing is, the Q9650 and X2 would crush the i7, as GPU power is far more impoartant than the CPU at this point.

Now, if you already have the GPU to drive the thing, feel free to throw your money at i7. I'll stick with my Q9650 a while yet, as even now, I have never seen it hit 20% usage yet, so why upgrade?
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2008 5:43:14 PM

Your chipset is not great for overclocking.

For the work you do with your machine the quad will help a lot. You will be able to overclock with your board but it will not be able to push the cpu to its max. The board will be the limitiing factor in your OC. Even more so with the quad cores.

The drawback from a quad is single threaded performance on a lower clock speed compared to higher clocked dual core that cost less. Prime example on the forums is for games that arent very good at using all the cores. The faster dual cores perform better. But if you clock your quad to the same clock as a dual there is no performance drop off.
October 31, 2008 3:13:25 AM

My current card is a XFX 8800GTS XXX Edition 512. I am only running one, but I have considered buying another one to run in SLI. I have also thought about upgrading that to a GTX 280, but at this point I will wait. Buying another 8800GTS would be much cheaper. I am sure that two 8800GTS cards in SLI would be comparable to a 4870X2. As for the processor, I think I have made up my mind with the Q9650. I will more than likely try to overclock it to 3600mhz like my E8400.
October 31, 2008 3:25:38 AM

I am actually seeing more and more about the 780i chipset and Nvidia chipsets in general not being the best for overclocking. I did not do a lot of research about the overclocking capabilities of the 780i when I bought it. I just went on the fact that it was an SLI board and it reviewed well. In retrospect, I probably would have gone with a X48. From what I understand though, some of the newer chipsets from Intel will be SLI Ready. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
September 14, 2010 9:55:56 AM

gamerk316 said:
I find this a simple question:

First off, i7 doesn't show much improvement over quads in non-multithread apps, which means most games wont take most of i7's advantages for a while. Throw in the cost of a X58 and Tri-DDR3, and a i7 system becomes much more expensive.

Would you perfer a Q9650 with a 4870X2, or a i7 with a 8800GT? Both setups would be around the same price (once you factor in Mobo and RAM). Funny thing is, the Q9650 and X2 would crush the i7, as GPU power is far more impoartant than the CPU at this point.

Now, if you already have the GPU to drive the thing, feel free to throw your money at i7. I'll stick with my Q9650 a while yet, as even now, I have never seen it hit 20% usage yet, so why upgrade?

I've a E-8400 ,XP-32bit , GT240 ddr5 512 , 2Gb Ram pc-8500 & DVDFab Blu-Copy .. I do alot of Blu-ray (25Gb & 50Gb) movie Back-up .. I've been wondering if a new build i7-950 or upgrade w/ Q9650 will give better performance .. I'm not as techware as you .. I guess I'm about quality of finished product & speed .. Thanks .
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 10:10:17 AM

MERX2006 said:
I've a E-8400 ,XP-32bit , GT240 ddr5 512 , 2Gb Ram pc-8500 & DVDFab Blu-Copy .. I do alot of Blu-ray (25Gb & 50Gb) movie Back-up .. I've been wondering if a new build i7-950 or upgrade w/ Q9650 will give better performance .. I'm not as techware as you .. I guess I'm about quality of finished product & speed .. Thanks .


Hey, this thread is 2 years old, so i suggest that you open a new thread, and we'll help you there.:) 
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 11:07:44 AM

Another zombie thread rises from the grave..
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2010 6:38:18 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!