Hi...Now I know that Q9550 is a superior proc, but can anyone tell me that how much difference is there between Q9400 and Q9550 performance?? I am not a gamer and not an overclocker, my pc willl be used for music production only. So pls tell me how much difference is there as Q9550 has 12MB cache vs 6MB in Q9400, does this makes a HUGE difference or just slight difference? I have actually bought a Q9400 but I can return it and get a Q9550 if the difference is really huge, but I don't want to spend the extra money as I am also getting a mobile and need it for that,but again if the difference is really big then I can sacrfifice the mobile and get the Q9550. So please help me.
More aboutdifference q9400 q9550
I would say 5-10% performance difference depending on application, games were the biggest advantage of the additional L2 cache. Just look up some benchmarks, really not that hard to do.
Do you live near a Microcenter? If so, return the Q9400 and get the Q9550 at Microcenter for $169.99
Thanks for your answers, and no I don't live near any microcenter, so there is no huge difference then??
I wouldn't call it a huge difference but it makes a pretty big difference, and probably will show more later on. It is a 100% increase after all. Also you'll have a bit more OC headroom with a Q9550.
If you already have a Q9400 you'd probably be fine just sticking with that, especially if you are just doing gaming. If you are a serious OCer however I'd go for the Q9550 for sure.
I haven't had a Q9400 but I do have a Q9450 as well as a Q9550 and I found the Q9550 easier to OC plus this one runs a bit cooler and it definitely outperforms the Q9450 in crunching medical research work units though not by an earth shattering amount.
I'd have to say I'd need to know how much of a price difference you are looking at between the two before I made a choice.
For example if an extra fifty or so bucks got me the better CPU I'd grab it without question.
Oh and don't listen to someone who would always suggests that you go for the route that is extremely expensive with no much performance difference compared to cheaper ones.
Geez you're just like a bad smell that won't go away aren't you?
If you dislike other peoples advice keep it to yourself and try growing up.
At first I thought it was just me but now I've noticed your same bad attitude seems to prevail throughout the place.
You like anandtech so much stay there or do they have rules against "veteran" flamers too?
This is a forum where people ask for opinions and guess what yours isn't the only one and it's far from the be all end all of computing so deal with it.
Thanks all for your help, I am not into games and not into oc either as I have stated above, I might oc a little bit just for the experience but I am not sure i would even do it or not, may be upto 3ghz.
So if I oc q9400 to 3 or 3.2ghz will it then be able to compete q9550 at stock speed?
Yes, even Q9400@2.66GHz will be very similar to Q9550 most of the time except in cache intensive working due to its L2 cache is 6MB less than Q9550.
Stick with the Q9400, it'll be fine, the only benefits from getting the Q9550 over the Q9400 would be gaming, overclocking or both, and you do none of the above, so no need to worry...
If you can find it, I'd say a Q9450 is a nice compromise. However I have no idea where to find that CPU.
A Q9505 (Easily found on Newegg) would be a nice compromise the other way around also.
^ Aye, the problem is the Q9550 is way overpriced on Newegg... =(
Thank you very much all of you for putting my mind at ease, I think I am gonna stick with Q9400 as I am not much into gaming and oc, and now I can also get a Sony Ericsson Xperia which was not possible if I would have bought a Q9550 :-)