E8600 beats Q9550? Help Quick!!!!!! Must send back.

stay with your quad, oc'd would make it equal.

LOL, and I seen countless e8600's hit about 4.5 ghz below 1.4v.

edit: 4.0 ghz with no vcore adjustment. Geez, I can't wait to get me one of those. Hurry up i7!

You quad will not win on single threaded and even dual threaded apps, but will crush in apps designed to use all 4 cores.

If you are going to multitask, encode video, compress files allot the extra cores will help. Future games are supposed to take advantage of more cores soon, but they have been saying it for a while and most do not take more then 2.

In the end it is your choice, but for running multiple demanding apps, quad core is the way to go.

Well, 8 gigs of ram tends to help. Some apps are just cpu demanding not always memory either(video encoding).

Where do you come up with your stuff?

have you ever run 2 video encoders or a video encoder and a game on your dual core? chances are no. I have BOTH right here beside me(at the same clock) and the quad works WAYYYY(faster encoding, smoother games) better for that.

Sure I seen a q9650 ($540) do 4.5 ghz just under 1.4v. He had to almost use a 1.5v to push it to 4.6 ghz. But he never mentioned prime 95 and it's stability. It was benchmarking only. That's the only one I seen too. I wouldn't run anything like that. 4.0 ghz is the highest that I've seen stable and it's uncommon. Hell, my cheap e5200 dual chip (hopefully soon to be a e8600) can do 4.2 ghz and work fine. But I like to make sure it's rock solid stable.

Now it's the e8600's turn. You can get 4.5 ghz stable prime 95 with 1.32v on air. Now that's what I call impressive. I seen a 5.1 ghz with a 1.47v stable listed, but the link was broken so I don't believe it.

http://images4.hiboox.com/images/3 [...] 63c6fd.jpg

Good advice from blood raven, I'd just let the Q9550 sit quiet while you save some money for next year.

If its all about gaming, I would have never messed with a quad in spite of all the "future proofing" remarks. The only way I would go quad is in a multi-gpu environment providing I could find anything factual to show me the benefits. That 9550 is a nice CPU but I would send it back myself. Just my .2 cents.
You dont need a quad to play games ported from consle to PC lol. Developers arent going to swell their expense because people bought 4 core cpu's instead of dual cores.
(here we go with the list of about half a dozen games that benefit from the quads)

Roofus,

Thats all I do are games like Crysis, COD4, GTA4 when it comes out, FSX, etc. Would I notice a difference in my games with the E8600 instead of the Q9550? To be honest with ya, with my Q9550 at 2.83Ghz, I haven't noticed a bit of improvement when overclocking to 3.4Ghz. That just doesn't make sense to me, but it is what it is. I mean the benchmark charts prove it, but will I even see it?

Relax Silverion77. Newegg has given me a full refund deadline of Monday to decide. That's why I am running around asking. I dont know these things and thats why I ask and thank you all for your insight. I didn't know that there wouldn't be that much of an improvement with about 1-5 frames. So that changes things up a bit.

I have an 8800GT is that being a bottleneck for the full potential of my Q9550? Like I said, to be honest I didn't really notice a difference in games going from the e6600 to the Q9550. I was wondering if it was my GPU.

Its the thread u started lol just in the OC section

And i would say yes. Ur 8800GT is ur first bottleneck before u have to worry about ur quad

Why? Just because it is a bottleneck doesn't mean that your performance won't be adequate. However, it is true that a quad overclocked to 3.5+ GHz (which should be achievable on air on yours) will not bottleneck any but the most ridiculous of graphics setups. I'd stick with the quad.

Probably not Spit. Overclocking definitely holds merit with the newest higher end graphics cards from ATI and Nvidia. I guess you just have to ask yourself if it is doing what you want it to do at a satisfactory level. Dont get yourself going crazy chasing numbers if it plays all your games great and no issues with apps. Anything above 60 is bragging rights but as jaydee has mentioned in other threads here, it isnt about achieving a higher max, its about brining up the minimum. I could care less about 200fps if it drops down to 15 in heavy action. I want stability and that is something benchmarks dont really tell the whole story on. Your graphics card is probably playing into that more than your CPU. Good luck in whichever way you choose to go here.

I am amazed at how fast blood started to flow over something like this. Anyways I do realize that Spitfire's deadline is over I just wanted to reply to this for my own sake. Everyone knows that dual cores are capable of reaching higher frequencies. I admit I have no experience with why one is superior to another, but having just finishing up my own shopping for computer parts, my decision of going with the Q9550 was the l2 cache. for $50 more over the E8600 you get double the l2 Cache, and I don't know if 12MB is any more advantageous over 6MB there is an article on here that shows that even at the same frequency more cache equals more performance. Basically the frequency you can change to that of the E8600, but no matter how fast you clock the E8600 it is never going to get the 12MB cache of the Q9550.

Quad ftw.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid [...] ks/?page=2

Just a suggestion:

If you are into overclocking anyway, why wouldn't you go with an E8500, save another $80 and then just push it to the same or close to the E8600?

u love reviving dud threads dont u??

this ur hobby?

LOL! LOL! (trademark i might use it more)

Whats ur definition of Multitasking so we can justify that first?

Im not in any hole. Ur contradicted by everyone on this site except maybe 3 ppl. No one uses ur info as facts...ur worse than a AMD fanboy accepting the defeat by Intel or Nvidia fanboy not accepting the 4870 as a good card. Srysly.

Games are moving to quad. FSX, Left 4 Dead uses 4 cores. GTA4 has a minimum of a quad... u just dont give up....

Edit: Go back to reading ur essays to ur teachers LOL!

u still didnt answer the question....what do u call multitasking?

Cause in a earlier post by u, u definitely had no clue
To me Multitasking is Kaspersky scan, windows defender, internet (i kno that does nothing), Photoshop, some emulators running and Call of Duty 5 and i get no problems. I right click and assign it to separate cores and I can say as a fact that my friend who has a E8400 cannot do that cause hes tried

And what facts? U showed us all one benchmark with a dual at 3.53 and compared to 4.4 about... That 1 GHz increase gave an average of what?!? 3fps? So u showed us that a 4.5 GHz OC does absolutely nothing for gaming. Thx for that.
Now if im correct still based off ur twisted facts. A Q9550 at 3.5 should do the same as a dual at 3.5....thats a good start. So ur saying that a E8500 or 6 at 4.5 beats the crap out of any quad when ur "facts" showed us all a 3fps average change. Thats great, ur "facts" make perfect sense

Was that too hard?? Ill dumb it down for u

Fact 1: Most games now dont take a huge advantage to higher clocked processors. Most are bottlenecked by GPU power. So u have no change between a dual and quad
Edit***: that should say performance Loss by switching to a quad from a dual. Just so u dont twist it to what u want to say

Fact 2: Games and software are moving to quad support. Windows 7 makes it easier for quad processing by making it easier to encode and the OS itself benefits from quads.

Fact 3: U still have not justified what u call Multitasking. In a past post i believe u said it is running a program and then turning it off and switching to another. I dont remember the exact wording but it was like gaming, turning it off and then running internet which is wrong

But anyways...i gotta finish my AP work. So if i dont respond its cause im busy

lol u mad? starting to swear?

and yes a lotus is better cause a Mustang is a terrible American car, but no cpus are american. 300HP on a V8 makes me laugh
HAHAHAHA u deleted ur car analogy!!! didnt work for u? revised it after u read it aloud?

1) U still have no justification of this. I have a stock quad atm and run all my games better than my friend with a higher dual. Y better gpu...but thats not our argument. Show me the benchies, srysly u say that duals kick the **** (i assume thats the other word for poop) out of duals but u dont even have one how can u make that judgement

2) Windows 7 is already in Beta testing and they announced that its quad supported and makes encoding easier. We knew everything about i7 before it came out didnt we? Well same idea

3) i cant seem to find it...u must of edited it out like every post u make

I run a 64bit Vista Ultimate SP1 and it works fine with Firefox in 32-bit mode. I love the extra memory it recognizes, as my laptop has 4GB. So switching to 64-bit isn't that much of a loss, and I'm speaking from personal opinion.

By the way, I support Silverlion's statement that Windows 7 will be more multi-core optimized. Hell, I've installed Windows 7 Build 6801 onto my laptop and my friend's Quad system, and it runs fast!

But I don't see why you guys are arguing over something so trivial. Soon we'll move to i7, and that will give us a minimum of four cores. When i7 matures, software vendors will realize, after all this time, that Quad is the new Dual. And Octa will be the new Quad in another two years. It's just the way of life, how hardware evolves. Arguing over something like this isn't worth the time IMHO.

P.S. Prescott dual processor multitasking = fail with modern specs. The programs back then were less stressing to the processor, remember. Try to do that now and it will die a horrible and painful death...

werxen wtf are u talking about

Windows Vista should only have come out in 64 bit as that was what it was intended for. They switched to 32 cause drivers werent ready (not like any were ready )

32 bit programs work fine on 64. Ever heard of WoW (and not the game). Its a built in Emulator for 32 bit programs in 64 bit OS. So yes i can brag i have 64 bit OS not that it means much. Everyone who gets Vista are told to get 64 on this forum. Maybe u just missed that

Let me quote this so you know exactly what I'm directing towards. No, I have been doing this in other threads a lot more. What's your point?

Nope, I just took it out cause I felt it was inappropriate for the subject. But since you insisted. Compare it to the new corvette. That 220 hp is right next to that 505 hp corvette. 3.7-3.9 secs vs 4.0 secs. Yes, 505 hp is really hard to control, hence the time varies. I don't even want to mention the 287 hp exige version, that's just brutal. All with good mileage and a lot more room for power that can be put to the pavement efficiently. Now all I have to say about that is, does 505 hp for a v8 make you laugh?

1. Look through the forums, nobody usually says you have to overclock the dual, but MOST people will say overclock the quad for sure. Don't act stupid and ignorant or I'll start treat you this way by getting sarcastic.

2. Wow, and that's like when? Last time I checked Microsoft doesn't even know this answer. Well, that's what they are telling the press anyhow. Hardware is different. It might even get a new file system which Vista was supposed to have. Vista was an incomplete os. Bad comparison. Microsoft doesn't have roadmaps laid out in specific detail like Intel does.

3. It's in another thread and I have an idea of which one it was, but I'm not going to go look for it just cause you can't follow what people are saying, let alone your own thoughts.

Don't worry, what kind of benchmarks would you like to see? He needs this sytem really soon and I'd be glad to stress test it for him before I let him have the system.

Really!? Hardware from FOUR years ago is outdated? WOW, that's breaking news man!!! Also, no, have you owned this setup? I actually find it more responsive and more stable then my core 2 duo at any speeds. And of course the core 2 duo is faster. Don't even go there.

What were you trying to get at again?

Corvette is heavier than an Elise or Exige, thats the difference. And the last i knew, weight doesnt really play into cpu performance.
To tell u the truth, a real analogy would be taking the EXACT same car, putting a V4 in one and a V8 in another. Thats exactly like cpus. U can even break it down more. V8 uses more gas (electricity) and produces more heat. But lo and behold a feel a V8 would win. Just a thought though. Like a friend of mine, took a Nissan 350Z, took out the V6 and put in a V8...and holy crap, it went faster.
Lastly, Nissan GTR > Corvette

One thing....u cant be sarcastic with writing. Just doesnt seem to work

Actually no one says u have to OC anything. Overclocking is not done out of Need, its done out of want. Either to gain (as you have shown) 3-5 fps, pushing a cheap cpu farther (like my E2180) and bragging rights. Thats all overclocking is for. When u show those Benchmarks with those XS members with 4.5 OCs, u think they HAD to do that? I doubt it was bottlenecking them...they did it to brag. Thats all.
Cpus play almost no role in game performance in most situations but for some reason that doesnt get through to u. I admit spend less on CPU and get a better gpu, but if said person has the budget to get a good gpu and still has money left over for a quad, then get it.
For example, a friend wants to build a budget build (700-800) and wants to use a Q6600. I told him to get a E2160 and OC it. That was my personal opinion so he could buy what really counts. A better GPU. But for someone like me with a $1200-1400 budget, I got the card i wanted. I couldve saved and gotten a 4870x2 but the price didnt justify it to me so i got a better cpu hence the quad

As for Windows 7, it leaked and its out. Its Prebeta builds but it utilizes quad cores. Now i rly feel since they have quad utilization in, they wont go and take it out. But in ur world Habitat Windows might just do that.

And i see quad utilization in 6-8 months (gotta say in 2050 u wont be gaming, have a job, be very old, or dead. Also cpus wont exist)
U just dont want to accept that everything is moving quad. Nehalem is starting with quads. Westmere wont even have quads last time i checked. The push of new hardware pushes software.