Is the Q9650 @ 4Ghz still a powerful cpu?

[_JP_]

Eheh, no problem. But, IIRC, there was a s775 version as well, with the same specs. Must be even rarer and twice the price.

[Flibolito]

I own a Q9550 and a i7920, both are @4GHz and hyperthreading is on for the i7. In some games there is no difference. But in games like BF:BC2 the i7 destroys the Q9550. Graphically they are very close within 1 FPS of each-other in stone giant which hardly pulls CPU. In Bad Company 2 it can only load the 580 to about 70% avg and it runs about 20-35fps less than the main rig. This is at 1920X1080 32xCSAA and everything else as high as it goes. This is a huge difference considering SB can push even harder and BF3 will make use of a lot of CPU power. Now the question is, this is only noticeable with fraps on and V-sync off. Both systems are perfectly smooth so in my opinion the q9550 when overclocked still does a good job and is worth hanging onto till at least next year, mind you that is on single GPU setup. For SLI or crossfire setups a Q9550 is quickly falling behind since the GPUs are very strong today and love to be fed by a strong CPU. So for a good strong mid+ range gaming system it's still enough not to warrant an upgrade. If one seeks the absolute best gaming experience in games like BF3 and so on a 2500k or a 1366 setup will do a much better job in top games especially with multi GPU setups.

Starcraft 2 is also one where the i7 is a good chunk ahead. This is all for gaming, for regular everyday use even a mildly overclocked Q9550 will get the job done, in that case a good SSD will make the system feel like a million bucks again.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by _JP_

Eheh, no problem. But, IIRC, there was a s775 version as well, with the same specs. Must be even rarer and twice the price.

QX9770 is what you're looking for.

[mlee49]

Thanks, posted before reading entirely.

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Originally Posted by random

Best route to take in terms of gaming would be to upgrade according to what GPU setup you have or want and I am sure the Q9650 is still able to handle dual 6xxx/gtx5xx cards.

I would put my Q9650 and my GTX 470 up against my i7 any day of the week, it may lag behind by a dozen or so FPS, but it's also about 2 years older, pretty beefy IMO.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Originally Posted by [H]@RD5TUFF

I would put my Q9650 and my GTX 470 up against my i7 any day of the week, it may lag behind by a dozen or so FPS, but it's also about 2 years older, pretty beefy IMO.

Yeah, but compared to an i5 2500k your i7 may lag behind by another dozen fps or so in certain titles.

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Yeah, but compared to an i5 2500k your i7 may lag behind by another dozen fps or so in certain titles.

No I think they would be pretty even if not my i7 being a little faster.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Originally Posted by [H]@RD5TUFF

No I think they would be pretty even if not my i7 being a little faster.

Yeah, ok.

This is what I mean when I say that there are no good cpu oriented gaming benchmarks with Sandy. Fyi your cpu isn't any faster clock for clock than the i5 760 in the benchmarks that I posted in real world gaming against an i5 2500k but think what you will.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Yeah, ok.

This is what I mean when I say that there are no good cpu oriented gaming benchmarks with Sandy. Fyi your cpu isn't any faster clock for clock than the i5 760 in the benchmarks that I posted in real world gaming against an i5 2500k but think what you will.

actually you are both relatively close to the truth. Allow me to school some pissing match.


His i7 can out pace your 760. why? because while they might not be any better or worse clock for clock which is TRUE btw. The memory management system on I7 rigs is superior for bandwidth and theirfor allows more data calculation to be done. Not to mention the amount of cache on the I7 chips themselves unless against the higher end I5's is usually more and faster at that.

That DOES however go the same vs SB. a sandybridge chip clocked even with HT off can take any I7 machine. HOWEVER. an I7 will outpace SB i the I7 has more cores or the SB isnt using all cores. SB does have some benefits to I7 most of which is memory management, and clockability. Which doesnt sound like much but for example. you have

I7 950 4.2ghz You will outpace
I5 2500k stock

you WILL be outpaced
I7 950 4.2ghz
I5 2500k 4.2Ghz

Not to mention that the I7 chip will reach its threshhold before the SB platform he will be able to go higher and more stable and will cap out far after you. SB is a platform that if done righ cannot be kept up with if you know what your doing.

class dismissed.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. In fact I can't think of any typical desktop applications that are. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e controller on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.

You may want to take another class yourself (check a lynnfield review). Most of what you said makes little sense btw.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.

I'm not sure how you can do math with no numbers. That must be George W.'s new math.

your just upset at that fact that you are partially wrong. I honestly dont want to waste the time if you dont have any intention on trying to understand it. Im actually not even sure why you would expect to see math in my posts. If you knew anything about the architecture of the CPU's and their corresponding components like MC,NB,QPI then you would understand that while the performance gain may be negligable at stock speed with any amount of tweaking the newest platform does infact pull ahead. I have owned each of these platforms and i can tell you that it is true.

it goes alot like this

I5>I7>SB
I7(stock)>I5(clocked)>=/=SB
=/=SB>I5(clocked)>I7(clocked)
I5(Clocked)>I7(clocked)>SB(clocked)
slow<=========================>fast

[jpierce55]

Even my e8200 at 3.9ghz and DDR3 ram is powerful enough. Only a handful of things that need more than 2 cores would truly need more. A 4ghz q9650 should be able to handle anything out there.

[jpierce55]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. In fact I can't think of any typical desktop applications that are. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e controller on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.

You may want to take another class yourself (check a lynnfield review). Most of what you said makes little sense btw.

I picked up a considerable amount of performance going from DDR2 to DDR3 on this processor, so I don't know that I agree with you.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Originally Posted by Solaris17

your just upset at that fact that you are partially wrong. I honestly dont want to waste the time if you dont have any intention on trying to understand it. Im actually not even sure why you would expect to see math in my posts. If you knew anything about the architecture of the CPU's and their corresponding components like MC,NB,QPI then you would understand that while the performance gain may be negligable at stock speed with any amount of tweaking the newest platform does infact pull ahead. I have owned each of these platforms and i can tell you that it is true.

it goes alot like this

I5>I7>SB
I7(stock)>I5(clocked)>=/=SB
=/=SB>I5(clocked)>I7(clocked)
I5(Clocked)>I7(clocked)>SB(clocked)
slow<=========================>fast

Do you understand what the difference between lynnfield and bloomfield is? Do you know what the difference between a core i5 and a core i7 is? Seriously, check a review. Post a link, something. I have owned an i7 860 and an i5 760 and an i5 2500k for that matter and posted benchmarks. Believe it or not the 760 was faster than the 860 in gaming, mostly because it clocked better. I'm speaking from first hand experience.

I haven't owned a bloomfield but in most benchmarks that I have seen Lynnfield performs a little better but the difference probably isn't noticeable. Dude do a little research before trying to be arrogant.

Originally Posted by jpierce55

I picked up a considerable amount of performance going from DDR2 to DDR3 on this processor, so I don't know that I agree with you.

Placebo effect? What else changed? I'm sorry but in all of the X48 benchmarks that I have seen that just isn't the case.

Either way we are talking about a completely different architecture. Just having the memory controller built onto the cpu caused a massive difference in bandwith. Its not all about the memory itself.

[Animalpak]

[QUOTE=Solaris17;2365262]4GB ram
quad at 4Ghz
GTX 460

crysis 2 on ultra?

GTX460 absolutely no !!!

[jpierce55]

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Placebo effect? What else changed? I'm sorry but in all of the X48 benchmarks that I have seen that just isn't the case.

Either way we are talking about a completely different architecture. Just having the memory controller built onto the cpu caused a massive difference in bandwith. Its not all about the memory itself.

How about no placebo effect, and I am talking FPS in actual games measure by FRAPS not benchmarks..... though benchmarks increased as well.

[LagunaX]

Out of curiosity I ran the Anandtech cpu vs. cpu benchmarks.

It was kinda scary in the stock q9650 vs. lowly i3-2100 benchmarks.

Then I ran the q9650 vs. 2500k.

Looking at just the gaming it seemed like a 10-15% difference for the most part at stock.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=49

However for a comfortable overclock the q9650 will go from 3ghz to 4.0ghz while the 2500k will go from 3.3ghz to 4.8ghz - a 0.5ghz more overclock on more efficient architecture, and not even saying that the 1ghz overclock would be equal scaling either.

That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu.

I love my Sandy Bridge at 4.8ghz but i still like my old e8500 @ 4.5ghz...

[jpierce55]

Originally Posted by LagunaX

That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu.

And that statement, of course, is absolutely correct.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Thats what I don't like about Anandtech benchmarks. Fallout 3 on medium settings at 1680x1050 on a GTX580? Turning up the settings on any Gamebyro game is going to effect the cpu load. Gamebyro is notoriously cpu limited. I saw a bigger difference at 1920x1200 maxed out with a GTX570 between a 760 and 2500k than they did between the 2500k and q9650 with those ridiculous settings.

Far Cry 2 is another one at medium settings.

I'm just not fond of Anand's cpu comparisons.

Originally Posted by jpierce55

And that statement, of course, is absolutely correct.

With todays video cards like a GTX570 or 6950 true at all.

[random]

Originally Posted by LagunaX

That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu.

This is what I meant, in terms of gaming I don't really think the CPU matters as long as it is not bottlenecking any performance from the GPU and unless the games you like to play depend alot on the CPU eg. WoW or the other Blizzard games.

[Outback Bronze]

I think in gaming alot of games run on different cpu-gpu ratios.

I know metro doesnt matter what cpu u have(to a certain extent).

This is because i was running one of my 6950s with a q9550 @ 2.0ghz then put it(6950) in my i7 @ 4.2ghz and there was no difference in frames.

[Yukikaze]

Yes.

/thread.

[Jetster]

So my interpretation of this thread for me is that upgrading to a Q9650 is a viable option for around $200. Or buy a new MB CPU and Mem?
Ive been pondering this issue for some time now

[BarbaricSoul]

A Q9650 is beaten by the 2500k, no point in even trying the argue about that. But, the Q9650 still has plenty of power for todays games. For someone with a socket 775 rig, spending $200 for a used q9650 over buying a new 2500k/1155 motherboard/ddr3 RAM compatable with SB is a viable option. Also, the Q9650 still beats anything AMD has out, which will probably change once BD is released.

[Lionheart]

Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul

Also, the Q9650 still beats anything AMD has out,

I find that hard to believe.....