Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by Q9650, Aug 5, 2011.
First of all, I have a i5 2500k.
Second of all, I had an i7 860 that I replaced with that i5 760.
Third, I would be willing to bet that you don't know the difference between those two cpus.
Fourth, I have provided real world benchmarks that I saw while gaming on all of those cpus.
Oh, yeah I traded my Q9650 for that i7 860.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you don't want to do any research to help educate yourself on the subject than I'm not going to argue with you. Think what you will.
First of all your specs say i5 760. Forgive me for not knowing the exact system you are running...
Second of all: I don't care about your upgrade process.
Third. I do.
fourth. I did.
oh yeah... I don't care.
Sounds good, you should keep quite more often.
What is it?
Why does that somehow make a Q9650 as fast as an i5 760 but not an i7 860?
It has been the general consensus on this forum that the phenomII is just a tad slower than a high-end core2quad at equal clock speeds. It was explained to me that a PhenomII at 3.8ghz is equal to a core2quad q9*50 at 3.6ghz. This has been the general consensus I had found on this forum since the phenomII were released, and from what I have experienced myself, it's true(you know, real world experience and all).
no one is saying that
I agree with you but the difference between the two isn't as big as it may appear in superpi. AMD processors perform awfully in superpi.
He has said just that a couple of times now.
Dang, you already commented. I thought you were done....
A big difference is Hyper Threading. i7 860 runs at 2.8Ghz vs 2.66ghz.
But the big difference between the Q9650 and the i5 750 is the L2 cache. Which is what helps keep the Q9650 keep up with current cpu's.
You do know how L2 cache works, right? Each dual core in Yorkfield only has access to the same 6MB cache that Wolfdale has.
Umm, hyper-threading tends to hurt more than it helps in gaming.
More claims with no evidence don't do much to help your case.
There is no case. What are you going on about?? The Q9650 is still a great processor. You don't agree with that?
Yes I understand L2. Neither the Q9650 or the i5 750 have HT, so I don't see how that is relevant in any way.
What are you going on about?
Its a three generations old processor. It was great for its time. Is it great compared to current processors, no.
You are going to disagree with me in some rude manner no mater what I post anyways so I'm done responding to you.
But that's the thing, right now, it is great compared to AMD's top of the line CPU's. In real life applications, the best AMD can do is only match the performance of said "3 generation old" cpu. The only way AMD can consistantly beat or match the Q9650 is with a 6 core cpu, and then it's only in applications that can use all 6 cores.
I think at this point in time the op's question has thoroughly been answered !
that's fine, I don't require a response from you. maybe try to be less condescending to avoid future rudeness. regardless of what you think the q 9650 is still a good chip.
I agree with you. I would never consider an AMD cpu for a gaming rig.
Its just not as bad as super pi makes it look.
Now you see this is where you are very very wrong. I just did a quick look to see what your saying has any proof and no it doesn't. I found that the Phenom II 940 and the Q9650 are about the same in performance. Ill give you a few links > http://www.guru3d.com/category/review/ and > http://www.google.com.au/ But it is hard to find a Core 2 Quad Vs Phenom II anywhere using the same programs and versions.
Now from your statement you say only the top end Phenoms will beat a Q9650? well going from what i found a 955BE and above will start to outperform the Q9650 and of course the clock speeds only get higher for AMD up to 3.7GHz. The X6 depending on clock speeds and the program the X6 will beat the Q9650 in more then double the benchmarks.
Super Pi? Thats the worst benchmark to compare AMD to Intel, hell im sure a P4 would still beat a Phenom in that test
Short of adding a SSD the only thing that can make a 9650 seem faster is lowering it, getting 20" rims, tinting the windows, adding a spoiler, and getting custom racing seats...
Sorry I couldn't help it....
Did I just not say that a phenom II at 3.8 is about equal to a c2q q9*50 at 3.6?. Your 955BE is clocked 200mhz over a stock q9650, which only backs up what I said. BTW, how many 955 you heard of doing +4 ghz stable? AMD is beating the core2quads, which are officially EOL, by clocking thier CPU's higher. Intel could have done the samething, but instead moved on to I5 and I7.
Look, I'm not trying to get into some fanboy fight or anything like that. I'm not a fanboy. I go for the best performing product I can afford. Intel has been the leader for sometime now, so I choose Intel processors. If BD, when released, is shown to perform equal to but cost less than SB, or out-performs SB, I'll buy that platform(I do plan on upgrading this winter). All I'm trying to say is that for a person with a less than high-end c2q or c2d system, that can't afford a full system upgrade, a used q9650 is a viable option. The q9650 still has plenty of power for todays software, especailly when paired with a good OC'ing motherboard like the UD3P.
In short, the Q9xxx is fine at 4ghz for what you need. On the flip side it is EOL now and going to loose value.
Those are the only ways to see it, and due to the amount of drama as of late I am going to close it.
Separate names with a comma.