1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Q9550 or E3110?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by niko084, Oct 7, 2008.

  1. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    I kinda prefer having the quad... But going to build another machine here soon, going to be one or the other of those two..

    What kinda numbers are people getting from the Q9550's on air easily?
    I know the E3110's are popping 4+ very nicely!

    Cost/Effectiveness is also a consideration here to a point, because it will probably mean the difference between a 4870 or GTX260 and a 4850.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  2. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    the quads are better all around.

    not just for people who multitask but more and more games are being developed for more threads.
    Plus if you use vista you will see the quad being used a lot, I don't think you can compare speeds between the two or even say this is better for games, because the computer is used for a lot more then just gaming.
  3. JC316

    JC316 Knows what makes you tick

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    9,362 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    903
    I would also say the 9550. I like how responsive a quad is compared to a dualie. I am looking for one of my own, but at the right price.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  4. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    I would say E3110 I see zero difference from Qx9650 4.0ghz to E8400 at 4.4ghz. The reason is nothing use them. I like quads but it's like ddr3 and ddr2 nothing really uses ddr3 yet so why waste the money.
  5. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    I think you miss how much the OS and multi tasking uses milti threaded processors. i watch my cores all get used every day with my vista core meter. Plus lots of video software and photo programs are multi threaded. Also if you use a camera and pump it into your PC, encoding or transcoding the video will use the quad.

    Plus there are some games that use multi threaded processors, and they are growing every day.

    I think you cannot discount that duo's are fading away and multi threaded app's and os's are becomming mainstream, so buy your dual core and then start saving because you will be buying a quad or more in the near future. You will see a difference.
  6. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    read this and your mind may change http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=73166
  7. ascstinger

    ascstinger New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    544 (0.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Location:
    In a house
    the results of that test proved that at a higher frequency, the e8500 will be passed in some fairly recent games, even at a 700mhz advantage, and that single threaded apps run faster on higher frequency, becuase obviously 1 core at 3.8 is a lot slower than another at 4.5.

    However, as opposed to a dual core, if a game is optimized to use 2 cores, windows will still have 2 cores left over for it's own use, and the game will have its own dedicated two cores. Not to say that a dual core processor isnt quick, my E3110 tore pretty much anything to shreds, however the quad can e quicker in both day-to-day and gaming applications
    SystemViper says thanks.
  8. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Interesting read, i do encoding, transcoding and lots of other stuff, and i have seen gains with using the quads over the duo's,

    You are quoting one person in one article from somewhere i never heard of, but for the benifit of the doubt, i will so some more reading tonigh and see if there are other articles backing up or disputing the results.

    I definatly want to understand what is correct, and i have seen first hand that my work goes faster with a quad, but i like to think i am openminded and will take a day or 2 to read up more on that article.
  9. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    I do a lot of video encoding and such, I do get a decent amount of benefit with my x3210 @ 3.2 over my e6750 @ 3.2.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  10. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Ahhhhhh the X3210, that was my first xeon quad, that chip rocks, but since you do some video encoding then the Q9550 over 3110's is a no brainer, plus you get double the cache from 6M to 12M, that makes a huge difference with video stuff, flash building and many other creative programs. I have had a bunch of Duo's, some sweet E8400's a E8500 that did 4.5 no problem but i likes my X3210 better @ 3.4, I hade about 6-8 of them over the last year, but i made a fundmental decision to put all my systems on quads, and it's been sweet.
  11. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    I disagree and have had about every chip made including 2 QX9650, a e8400 at 4.2ghz to 4.5ghz E0 will kill a x3210 even at 3.7ghz. I owned two and thats a fact.

    A Qx9650 would be better or even a Q9550 E0 at 4.0ghz but it wll cost almost double to five times as much as a e3110. You would better spending that extra money on a video card, ram or cooling.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008
  12. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    see that is hte beauty of facts, that is your fact, I have my expieriences and the quad was faster for me, so who's fact is right?

    if you look you can get Q9650's for 400 so the gap is getting smaller.
  13. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    Your Q9450 cannot touch my e8400 at 4.4ghz unless you can hit 3.9ghz or higher, and it would cost about a 100.00 more and thats a fact and your Q9550 would cost double or more.
  14. Guru Janitor

    Guru Janitor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    298 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    New York
    I fail to see how a multi-threaded program for video encoding will perform better on a dual over a quad...he said he does video encoding, a quad would definitely be the better choice. I have both currently, photoshop loads and performs better on the quad then the dual. Video editing software (Vegas 8 Pro) loads and encodes faster on quad vs the dual. I installed vista on my quad in 20 minutes, and on my dual it took an hour and a half. Both computers with 4 gigs or RAM. In real day to day performance, a quad is a better choice.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  15. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    I just sold a Q9450 that hit 3.86 and prob would go over 4Ghz but you talk about own and can't touch, for you that may be true, but in my world, you facts are wrong.
  16. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    I don't know how since ive owned them and price per performance what you suggest is flat wrong. If you find a Q9450 that does 4.0ghz at 1.4v 24/7 8x500 on regular cooling I will eat my hat. Some E8400 E0s will do 4.5ghz on that voltage with a basic 25.00 cooler at 9x500fsb.
  17. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Yea it might cost you 100 more for the quad that will save you 10 to 30 min on a long encode, i don't know how much you get paid but in my world, that gap is paid for in the first week.

    but i said youe world is different then mine.

    Imagine the savings over a year???????
  18. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    I haven't seen that even with a Qx9650, it not that big a gap if at all and it would have to be a Q9550 which is more like 170.00 difference plus it would have to be a e0. You do realize a e0 dual core on average does 4.4ghz to 4.5ghz and a Q9550 even at best 3.9ghz at best unless a E0, a Q9450 ton average is 3.6ghz to 3.7ghz if lucky.
  19. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472

    HUH?
  20. Guru Janitor

    Guru Janitor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    298 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    New York
    He does a lot video encoding, In the long run, it will be worth the money for a quad over the dualie, its as simple as that. Encoding on my friend's core2duo machine for a 10 minute video can take 3 or 4 hours, encoding the same video on my q6600 took about a half hour. I think that can be a major selling point.

    Niko, you already have a quad, you know what it can do. You know that video encoding is multi-threaded. It only helps to have a quad, and it will be very helpful in the future.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  21. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    where is that stat show me. I do alot of video encoding and haven't seen those times even on a Dual 6400+ at 3.5ghz compared to a Qx9650 4.0ghz. In this case you might see 5 to 8 minutes even using the chips I listed but not over a dual core with 6mb of cache at 4.5ghz.
  22. SystemViper

    SystemViper

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,500 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    472
    I have seen differences in big Flash movies, AfterEffects and Premier so I like the slower speeds and larger cache's for my systems, it saves lots of time. I like my time, and the OP states that he does some video and noticed a difference with the X3210 the the C3110 so I think that the point is over, no need to debate something that is a proven winner for hte OP
    Guru Janitor says thanks.
  23. Guru Janitor

    Guru Janitor New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    298 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    New York
    Why do you look for benches and all that crap!? Its real world performance on a persons computer?! We use sony vegas 8 pro, and we edit and encode our own videos for a comedy group. Videos average about 8 minutes in length, depending on how much editing went into the video, it takes me anywhere from 25-45 minutes to encode a video, for my friend and editing partner on a core2duo, it takes him from 3-4 hours. Vegas 8 Pro is HEAVILY multi-threaded. My q6600 is at 100% during encodings with nothing running in the background. I'm talking REAL WORLD performance, not benches, you don't want to believe me, then disregard anything I say, I'm giving the OP my personal experiences.
    SystemViper says thanks.
  24. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    i'm saying that my Qx9650 at 4.0ghz a 600.00+ chip on ebay against my 169.00 E8400 E0 at 4.4ghz I see very little if ay difference even in encoding very little, and none in multitasking and for 450.00 it's a waste of money as it is 170.00 more to buy a Q9550 E0. He will see very little difference.
  25. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    and your dual cores are overclocked? and what dual core does he use that takes 4 hours a P4. You realize i'm talking on a new average 169.00 e0 8400 at 4.4ghz to 4.5ghz not at 3.0ghz. If your talking a commercial venture then by all means buy a Q9650, Qx9650, Q9550 etc, but not for day to day use and almost nothing is multi threaded and by the time it is you will want the next newest chip. If money is no object by all means get a Q9550
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page