Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 vs E8500 vs Q9550 vs QX9770

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 13, 2009 11:48:31 PM

Hello everyone,

I currently have the old Q6600 CPU, but was wondering if it is worth upgrading it to an E8500, Q9550, or QX9770? My EVGA 780i-SLI motherboard has been rather unstable, so I have not bothered overclocking this CPU. As it is, my BIOS does not post first try, it takes several tries for my system to boot up. I would love to overclock it, but as it is, does anyone think it's worth an upgrade?

More about : q6600 e8500 q9550 qx9770

a c 172 à CPUs
a c 197 K Overclocking
November 14, 2009 1:45:51 AM

No. You would gain more from OC'ing the Q6600 if you can solve your stability problems.

Otherwise, I would start saving for a P55 system.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 14, 2009 2:11:51 AM

Hello Jimmy, thanks for the reply. Any idea what the Q9550S has over the Q9550? Because there is quite a bit difference in price when looking at this link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


jimmysmitty said:
A Q9550 is not a bad investment from a Q6600 since it alone is higher stock and will OC better too.

If you have the money I would suggect this one though:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Its a Q9550 but has a 65w TDP thus it will run cooler.

m
0
l
November 14, 2009 2:14:19 AM

Anyone else have any issues with the EVGA 780i-SLI? Would upgrading the BIOS help with the stability and overclocking, or would anyone advise against flashing the BIOS since it has trouble enough as it is with booting up?
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
November 14, 2009 2:22:49 AM

The Q9550 and Q9550S are the same but the Q9550S has a lower thermal. Its 65w TDP instead of 95w.

It could mean lower temperatures as well as better overclocking.
m
0
l
November 14, 2009 3:53:32 AM

I was thinking, could the ram cause the computer to not boot on the first try every time? It takes me several tries before the system beeps, and the BIOS loads.

I'm running this ram right here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... along with the EVGA 780i-SLI motherboard.

Also, I cannot set the ram to 800 MHz with 4-4-4-12 timing without the BIOS complaining its too high. Right now it's running at 400 MHz at 5-5-5-18 timing. Sound like I need new ram?
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
November 14, 2009 4:27:27 AM

Over clock your Q6600... No added cost needed. This forum and the internet is full of over clocking Q6600 guides and recommendations.

Its your choice.

Memory speed has the least impact on the actual performance specifically in games frame rate.

Some things you can do with respect to memory issue... Increase your Dram voltage and or North-Bridge voltage. Again browse to OC/memory of this forum.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 14, 2009 4:40:59 AM

OP the simple answer to your problem is to run the Q6600 at 333FSB and this gives you a 3Ghz result ... more than you need to run anything on a single GPU card.

Instead of running 9 X 266 you simply need to run 9 X 333.

Any Q6600 will run the above at stock core voltage, providing it has good cooling - so ditch the stock cooler for a decent heatpipe job.

Remove and clean the RAM gold connectors with an eraser and reseat them.

You won't need to shift the ram timings as your only going to run it at 333 (667) ... not 400 (800) anyway.

The mobo will do the job easily.

As jimmy suggested the 9550S uses less power (runs cooler) and is a 45nm (12 Mb cache) product and the Q6600 is an older 65nm (8Mb cache) product but the increase in IPC for the cost is simply not good value for money ... unless it was a new build.

I suggest you crank up the Q6600 and extend the life of your system that way first.

I suggest you re-flash the bios.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
November 14, 2009 11:42:47 AM

Unless you work mostly with photo editing and video rendering apps, then it's not worth the upgrde (around 330$ for the Q9650). If you're a gamer and you have a friend willing to take your Q6600 for around $90 and you throw in another $90 for the e8500 that easily overclocks to 4 Ghz, then it could be worth the upgrade.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:21:37 PM

That's also a possible alternative 100Iboy ... good idea.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:23:33 PM

Selling a Q6600 to buy an E8500 at twice the price? I must be missing something here.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 15, 2009 9:33:30 PM

You are ... 65nm vs 45nm ?

I'd personally suggest an E8200 or E8300 which is a bit cheaper.

Point is the E8 series have the largest cache and overclock easily really well.

The Penryn core also has a few extra extensions and a slightly higher IPC as well as a lower TDP than the ealier 65nm core, plus the larger cache.

If you can get one cheap and overclock it, it is a good alternative.

The celeron quads are not much chop in comparison.

I'd overclock the Q6600 under a better cooler myself, but my point to 100Iboy was that isn't the only answer.

m
0
l
December 30, 2009 11:47:07 PM

sorry to hijack this thread but i have a similar question...

I've clocked my q6600 G0 to 3.2 on air easily... apart from the 12mb vs 8mb L2 cache on the QX9770 would there be any other performance differences? Would the difference from a 45nm process actually mean anything in real world performance?

I'm running at 400Mhz FSB which matches the QX...

cheers
os
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2009 1:29:42 AM

^ A Q9550S costs a ridiculous $350 at Newegg. This is more than the i7 920 or i7 860, which are far superior.

If you live near Microcenter, get yourself a Q9550 (regular) for $179.99.
If not, don't buy any Core2Quads off Newegg because they're way too overpriced.
Get a used Core2Quad off ebay or the classified section here.


As for a Q6600, as others have said, play around with the settings to get a stable overclock. Also, don't trade it for a fast dual core because you'll a drop in performance for multitasking programs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 8:20:34 AM

osbert said:
sorry to hijack this thread but i have a similar question...

I've clocked my q6600 G0 to 3.2 on air easily... apart from the 12mb vs 8mb L2 cache on the QX9770 would there be any other performance differences? Would the difference from a 45nm process actually mean anything in real world performance?

I'm running at 400Mhz FSB which matches the QX...

cheers
os



Penryn has a few extra tricks up its sleeve:

Lower power consumption (both as a result of the shrink from 65nm to 45nmm and some other changes) mark it as a slightly better cpu ... but the real world difference is scarcely better than 3 - 5 % for a gamer.

Some sites show up to 10% performance increase (at the same clock speed).

Getting the Q6600 to 3.2 on air simply by selecting the 1066 FSB and putting on a decent cooler is a good result ... if your running 1600 then I am just scratching my head over that one ?? I assumed you dropped the multiplier ... or something aint right ...

Instead of running 9 X 266 (1066) you simply need to run 9 X 333 (1333) = 3.06Ghz.

If your running 400 (1600FSB) and the multi is on 9 then you have 3.6Ghz ... doable but she will get damned hot without watercooling I imagine ... or have you got it on 400 X 8 ?? ... much easier and the RAM gets a healthy bandwidth boost ... not that the core2 CPU's benefit much from that as the prefetch / cache is very good to start with.

I'd be more interested in stuffing the beast full of RAM, sticking 2 cheap large HDD's in RAID0m and putting the best graphics card in it you can afford.

A quad at just over 3Ghz is plenty ... it won't be cpu limiting any games anytime soon ... not with a single GPU and 22" monitor.

Anyway ... hope this helps ... sorry for the late reply ... Christmas etc etc.

Good luck.
m
0
l
!