Q6600 vs. Q9550 / Q9550S

[bcp]

Thank you for all the great input you gave me for my Q6600 vs. E8400 post. I guess I am taking my Q6600 for granted; after all, it is almost two years old, my bad. So now share your thoughts with me on upgrading from the Q6600 to a Q9550 (95wt) or a Q9550S (65wt).

[Tau]

is 3-5% worth the $400 for that CPU?

[DrPepper]

The difference is minimal. The $400 could be spent on an i7 instead of a 45nm version of your current cpu.

[Wile E]

The Q9550 isn't $400. It's only $275. And if he plans to overclock, it's worth every penny. If he does not plan to overclock, then I would say save the money for something else.

[Mr.Amateur]

I believe $400 is for the new Q9550s no?

Doesn't seem worth the $100 increase to reduce wattage by 30W, but then again this may help boost overclocks

[1Kurgan1]

Would it really be worth it for overclocking? Don't the Q6600's clock almost as well as Q9550's?

[alexp999]

My Q6600 clocks to 3.6 Ghz and I havent even tried to go further. Unless you are a bench whore, I see no real reason to upgrade to a Q9550 as it will net little to not benefit for games/everyday use.

[RevengE]

If your going to spend 400 I highly Suggest You just Go Core I7. You can find some Nice x58 boards such as this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813136065 or this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128386 They are the Cheaper x58 boards but they are still nice and overclock well. I read a review on the Gigabyte its a nice board for the price.

[Binge]

System Viper got 4.6ghz with a 920 and a Gigabyte UD4. Nothing wrong with the cheaper boards.

If you plan to stay with 775 then the q9550 can not be beat. My e0 exceeded all of my expectations.

[RevengE]

Originally Posted by Binge

System Viper got 4.6ghz with a 920 and a Gigabyte UD4. Nothing wrong with the cheaper boards.

If you plan to stay with 775 then the q9550 can not be beat. My e0 exceeded all of my expectations.

Yeah Thats what I mean, They are Really nice for the Price

[1Kurgan1]

WEll he isn't really asking if it can't be beat. The Q9550 is obviously a better processor. More like he's asking with it be worth it to spend the extra cash, and if he is OC'ing the Q6600 I would say no. If he isn't OC'ing either of them then the Q9550 will be a good choice, but kind of a waste.

[Tau]

the 9550 clock for clock compared to a q6600 will only net you at MOST 5% more performance than the Q6600... due to is being 45nm, more cache, and a tighter transistor pack. IMO i wouldent bother as the Q6600 is still overkill for 98% of apps out there.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

WEll he isn't really asking if it can't be beat. The Q9550 is obviously a better processor. More like he's asking with it be worth it to spend the extra cash, and if he is OC'ing the Q6600 I would say no. If he isn't OC'ing either of them then the Q9550 will be a good choice, but kind of a waste.

Just the opposite, actually. If he is OCing, the 9550 makes sense. The 9550 out OCs a Q6600, hands down, easily widening the gap between the cpus.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by Wile E

Just the opposite, actually. If he is OCing, the 9550 makes sense. The 9550 out OCs a Q6600, hands down, easily widening the gap between the cpus.

the 9550 will land him in the 3.6-3.9Ghz range (a few hit 4, not to often though) and a GOOD q6600 will do 3.6.... so the diffrence is going to be neglible at best.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Tau

the 9550 will land him in the 3.6-3.9Ghz range (a few hit 4, not to often though) and a GOOD q6600 will do 3.6.... so the diffrence is going to be neglible at best.

Most all newer 9550's hit 4GHz if your board can clock them. Even the C1's hit 4Ghz with very few exceptions, and the E0's do even better in a good board. Not to mention they are already faster at the same clocks anyway.

[1Kurgan1]

It isn't opposite, the percentage difference between a 3.6ghz and 4.0 ghz is smaller than the difference than 2.4ghz vs 2.8ghz, both 400mhz gap, but quiet a bit smaller percentage.

Since both processors close to 4ghz are going to beyond powerful enough for anything out there it will not be too much of a diffrence unless your benching. But the 2.4ghz clock on the Q6600 stock is a killer compare to 2.8ghz on the Q9550. So thats why I said what I said, the stock clock difference is the big one if he isn't OCing.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

It isn't opposite, the percentage difference between a 3.6ghz and 4.0 ghz is smaller than the difference than 2.4ghz vs 2.8ghz, both 400mhz gap, but quiet a bit smaller percentage.

Since both processors close to 4ghz are going to beyond powerful enough for anything out there it will not be too much of a diffrence unless your benching. But the 2.4ghz clock on the Q6600 stock is a killer compare to 2.8ghz on the Q9550. So thats why I said what I said, the stock clock difference is the big one if he isn't OCing.

I see a big difference between 3.6 and 4 on my rig. I rip and re-encode a lot of movies, and the benefits are very obvious.

Admittedly, It does depend on his intended usage tho. Gaming wont likely see a difference, but long-lasting cpu intensive tasks will, as will benchmarking if that's important to him.

[jagass]

They don't differ that much...