Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

q9550 vs QX6850

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 29, 2008 10:23:18 AM

I just wanted some opinions on what processor would be best. I have a friend who has a newly sealed QX6850 and is going to sell me it for $300. Newegg has the Q9550 for $320 plus tax and shipping. If you were in my shoes what processor would you buy. I do plan on having an after market cooler on it and somewhere down the line i do plan to overclock. What would you do if you were in my shoes which processor would do me justice as in i have yet to find a clear answer around the net? Anyone?

More about : q9550 qx6850

October 29, 2008 6:25:00 PM

What are you other specs (i.e mobo, gpu, ram, etc)?
a b à CPUs
October 29, 2008 7:54:50 PM

I'd go for the 9550.
Related resources
October 29, 2008 8:27:35 PM

Motherboard: XFX 790i ultra
GPU: 1x XFX 9800GTX
Ram: Its between Corsair XMS3 4GB's DDR3 1333mhz at 9-9-9-24 or OCZ's Reaper HPC 4GB's of DDR3 at 6-6-6-20
PSU: Cooler Master 1,000 Watt
Case: Antec 1200
After market cooler: XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 120mm Rifle CPU Cooler

Thanks For reply guys, hope to get more. Greatly appreciate it.
I was thinking the same thing cjl, i could save though if i buy the qx6850 by like 40 or 50 bucks so i really need everyone input on this so down the road i don't just hit myself on the head when i could have gotten a sweet deal. Thanks again
October 30, 2008 5:25:33 PM

cjl said:
I'd go for the 9550.


the answer depends on the mobo if you have good cooling, water cooling and intel mobo you can crank this beast up!

the 6850 is 65nm and no hafnium

the 9550 is not much better then a q6600 at 3.6ghz, it is but again it depends on the mobo can you get 3.6ghz with your mobo?

its nvidia mobo so high fsb is not its friend! stability issues and high failure rates plague all 80 and 90 services boards
October 30, 2008 8:01:51 PM

dragonsprayer said:
the answer depends on the mobo if you have good cooling, water cooling and intel mobo you can crank this beast up!

the 6850 is 65nm and no hafnium

the 9550 is not much better then a q6600 at 3.6ghz, it is but again it depends on the mobo can you get 3.6ghz with your mobo?

its nvidia mobo so high fsb is not its friend! stability issues and high failure rates plague all 80 and 90 services boards


At 9x multiplier (q6600), it's 1600 = 4x400 = 9 x 400 = 3.6ghz. 790i can handle 1600mhz, although higher fsb while remaining stable is unlikely. q9550 use 8.5x multiplier, that's 3.4ghz at 1600mhz fsb, which is fairly good. QX6850 use unlocked multiplier, so fsb is not an issue, and can be oced as high as the cpu will take. The limit is usually 4ghz on air.

Also, if you were comparing a q6600 at 3.6ghz to a q9550 at 2.83ghz, it's not a fair comparison. The oced q6600 will blow away stock q9550 in everything, no exceptions. It's only fair with both cpus oced. On average, 45nm Yorkfield (such as q9550) outperforms 65nm Kentsfield (such as q6600, qx6850) by around 7% per clock. The difference vary greatly depending on task. In games, around 0%, in newer encoding programs that use sse4.1 (which Yorkfield use, but not Kentsfield) the gap can reach 30+%.

For professional encoding, q9550 is the choice, for gaming, either are fine. If you stick to the Nvidia chipset board, qx6850 with unlocked multiplier is the choice, for Intel x38/x48/p45 boards, either are fine.
October 30, 2008 9:51:39 PM

Thank you both Dragonsprayer and dagger, especially dagger good info. I would switch boards but i plan to tri-sli this setup so the nvidia chipset is going to have to stay. Well thanks for all your help guys i'll go with the QX6850 i hope everything installs and works when i get everything up and running in a few weeks, thanks for all the help and if anyone else has any good info on q9550 or qx6850 just leave a reply, it won't be another week or two before i have the money to make the purchase, but so far i got my mind set on the qx6850.
October 31, 2008 4:13:25 AM

Getting a Q6xxx over a Q9550 is not a smart choice for kentsfield which is slower than yorkfield clock for clock,if you are opting for a small saving with Q6600,i'd say that's a good move for its price/performance ratio,but paying about the same amout for a kentsfield at this point is really pointless.One thing to keep in mind:at this point you have a rather good chance of getting a EO stepping with Q9550,and if you do get one it will get you anywhere from 3.6-4.0 Ghz given you know how to overclock properly.Well realistically even if you do get the 4.0Ghz off the QX6850(which might be like 10% possibility depend on the quality)it will most likely only perform on par with a 3.6-3.7Ghz Q9550 which is quite possible in this case,and anything less you will only end up paying the same for less performance,and more ironically yet a older generation of the quad sitting in your mind there after,Think twice before you jump in that boat!
October 31, 2008 4:42:23 AM

9550 is a great choice
i have the qx6850 and i'm very happy!
October 31, 2008 2:36:26 PM

tim924 said:
Getting a Q6xxx over a Q9550 is not a smart choice for kentsfield which is slower than yorkfield clock for clock,if you are opting for a small saving with Q6600,i'd say that's a good move for its price/performance ratio,but paying about the same amout for a kentsfield at this point is really pointless.One thing to keep in mind:at this point you have a rather good chance of getting a EO stepping with Q9550,and if you do get one it will get you anywhere from 3.6-4.0 Ghz given you know how to overclock properly.Well realistically even if you do get the 4.0Ghz off the QX6850(which might be like 10% possibility depend on the quality)it will most likely only perform on par with a 3.6-3.7Ghz Q9550 which is quite possible in this case,and anything less you will only end up paying the same for less performance,and more ironically yet a older generation of the quad sitting in your mind there after,Think twice before you jump in that boat!


That's only assuming no fsb or ram bottleneck, which isn't the case for OP. And work per clock depends on task, can range anywhere from 0% to 30+%. And you're greatly underestimating oc capacities, for both chips. QX6850 reliably oc to at least 4ghz on any decent aftermarket air cooler (100% possibility). Q9550, assuming no fsb or ram bottleneck, reliably oc to at least 4.3ghz (also 100% possibility) on decent air cooler.
October 31, 2008 4:24:11 PM

Yea,that's my point,given the similar overclocking ability,why pay the same for a older generation with no SSE4.1/lower L2 cache(12mb vs 8mb) and slower clock per clock in some tasks,unless you are just fond of the name of Extreme edition.
October 31, 2008 7:32:20 PM

tim924 said:
Yea,that's my point,given the similar overclocking ability,why pay the same for a older generation with no SSE4.1/lower L2 cache(12mb vs 8mb) and slower clock per clock in some tasks,unless you are just fond of the name of Extreme edition.


Because OP wanted to keep the Nvidia chipset motherboard instead of going Intel. Given fsb limitations, Q9550 will be stuck at 3.4ghz with 8.5x multiplier, while QX6850 with unlocked multiplier will get 4ghz.
November 12, 2008 8:03:13 PM

Thanks for the help dagger and tim924. Been wanting to reply back just been busy with getting the funds to buy everything. This weekend i'll be picking up the QX6850. Knowing that it is older technology i think it will still be great for gaming which is what i am primarily using it for(And even if i picked the 9550 the new socket Intel is releasing is coming about now and those will greatly outperform the 9550 and QX6850, so in short i see a upgrade in a year or two down the line). Other then that thanks for the great help, i appreciate it very much. On a side note i realized that i'm saving about 60 bucks if i do go with the QX6850, and since i am a bit tight on money and kind of in a rush i figured i won't go wrong as you have suggested dagger with the very limited motherboard i chose i should keep the QX6850 over the 9550. Thanks again and i will let all of you know how the build went.
November 12, 2008 9:36:30 PM

giovanni86 said:
Thanks for the help dagger and tim924. Been wanting to reply back just been busy with getting the funds to buy everything. This weekend i'll be picking up the QX6850. Knowing that it is older technology i think it will still be great for gaming which is what i am primarily using it for(And even if i picked the 9550 the new socket Intel is releasing is coming about now and those will greatly outperform the 9550 and QX6850, so in short i see a upgrade in a year or two down the line). Other then that thanks for the great help, i appreciate it very much. On a side note i realized that i'm saving about 60 bucks if i do go with the QX6850, and since i am a bit tight on money and kind of in a rush i figured i won't go wrong as you have suggested dagger with the very limited motherboard i chose i should keep the QX6850 over the 9550. Thanks again and i will let all of you know how the build went.


If you're talking about i7, and it's only for gaming, don't worry about upgrading yet. Its performance is slightly lower than existing quads per clock, for single gpu.



i7 greatly outperform existing quads per clock in tasks such as encoding, as well as in synthetic benchmarks.


http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_performance_p...
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_performance_p...
November 17, 2008 1:46:41 AM

What if i went with the new EVGA board that has solid capacitors would that be a better board??
November 17, 2008 1:53:55 AM

giovanni86 said:
What if i went with the new EVGA board that has solid capacitors would that be a better board??


Solid caps can't blow when hit with high voltage, and supposedly lenghten lifespan. No idea how well it actually works in practice.
November 17, 2008 3:41:31 AM

dagger said:
Solid caps can't blow when hit with high voltage, and supposedly lenghten lifespan. No idea how well it actually works in practice.


I see, i don't either. Supposedly as I've heard from some sales personal at frys, and some customers that the board is a better board then the XFX one. The only difference that i could tell was the solid capacitors and that it had a FSB of 1600mhz and memory wise it could go up to 2000mhz. The board is cheaper at frys then the egg, and a person whom i met at frys was going to sell me some OCZ memory which from what he stated was OCZ's 1600mhz DDR3, which those module's go for $220 on the egg and he was willing to sell them to me for $120. But even then i am unsure about it since i've had my eyes on the XFX 790i ultra for quite a few months now. Not sure about the EVGA 790i FTW. Besides that difference in FSB, i have no idea if it really will yield anything well for me. But if i decide i have to do it now, considering my order from newegg will be processed tommor morning.
November 17, 2008 9:37:11 PM

giovanni86 said:
I see, i don't either. Supposedly as I've heard from some sales personal at frys, and some customers that the board is a better board then the XFX one. The only difference that i could tell was the solid capacitors and that it had a FSB of 1600mhz and memory wise it could go up to 2000mhz. The board is cheaper at frys then the egg, and a person whom i met at frys was going to sell me some OCZ memory which from what he stated was OCZ's 1600mhz DDR3, which those module's go for $220 on the egg and he was willing to sell them to me for $120. But even then i am unsure about it since i've had my eyes on the XFX 790i ultra for quite a few months now. Not sure about the EVGA 790i FTW. Besides that difference in FSB, i have no idea if it really will yield anything well for me. But if i decide i have to do it now, considering my order from newegg will be processed tommor morning.


790i actually don't do any better than 780i in term of fsb overclocking. The official 1600mhz support don't mean much, as it's basically the upper limit of 790i, and it can't oc much beyond that anyway. 780i can also run 1600mhz fsb, just not officially. Ddr3 does not produce noticeable performance gain over ddr2.
November 17, 2008 11:41:16 PM

oh they are pushing 1800 fsb and higher. i question how long they will last with the exception of the guys running water blocks and spot cooling but yea they are doing it lol
actually, i have my 780i runnung 24/7 @1700FSB. temps are good, very stable.

November 17, 2008 11:48:18 PM

roofus said:
oh they are pushing 1800 fsb and higher. i question how long they will last with the exception of the guys running water blocks and spot cooling but yea they are doing it lol


Of course they are. But a quick Google search shows some people get that high with 780i too. It's just pushing it, not to be counted on in every case. 1600mhz is basically the reliable limit for both.
November 18, 2008 12:42:40 AM

you must be referring to the FSB hole. you get above it and you gain headroom again.
November 18, 2008 12:51:39 AM

roofus said:
you must be referring to the FSB hole. you get above it and you gain headroom again.


FSB holes apply to the crappy 680i more than 780i. There are no real fsb holes in 780i that tweaking settings can't fix. It's a ceiling, not always at 1600mhz, but always somewhere, same as in typical Intel chipsets. 1600mhz is just a conservative estimate.
November 19, 2008 6:15:42 AM

Well, i went with the EVGA 790i FTW. Had trouble getting it at 1800mhz, but was able to run stable so far at 1750 FSB. Memory though is running at 1400mhz. The OCZ memory i got should have been able to run at 1600mhz, oh well still got a alright overclock at 3.5ghz stable, kept freezing while running prime 95 after about the first test just froze up. But so far so good, just got lower my CPU volt and keep testing. Wish i had just gone with the 9550, the qx6850 didn't overclock as well as i hoped for. Has a G0 revision as well.. oh well anyways thanks for all the information guys.
!