• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Q9550 or E8400/E8500?

hibeesmad

hibeesmad

hibeesmad

Associate
Joined
7 Sep 2007
Posts
400
Location
Edinburgh
I am not sure which one to go for. I will not be overclocking. I am a gamer and do a lot of web design work.

Which would you recommend, is it worth paying that more for the Q9550, or is it old tech?

Any help would be appreciated.

Johnny.
 
Q9550 or q6600 dont go dual its dead money and once more things suppoort it you wont be out of pocket again
 
hibeesmad said:
I just want something that will last until Nehalem is matured and cheaper. What permonce gain will I notice over my stock E6700?
Click to expand...

Stick with what you have. It is pointless spending over £100 for a cpu to last just a couple of months. The 2.66Ghz Nehalem is expected to debut at only $266 and is due around October. The E6700 is still a good cpu and any difference at stock speeds will be minimal. You will notice a big difference if you clock your E6700 though.
 
Yep, stick with your current CPU.

I disagree about Dual Core being dead money, in fact I just bought an E8600 over any electricity munching quad out there. Higher clocks (especially E8600 @ 4.5GHz) will do me just fine for a while!
 
pastymuncher said:
Stick with what you have. It is pointless spending over £100 for a cpu to last just a couple of months. The 2.66Ghz Nehalem is expected to debut at only $266 and is due around October.
Click to expand...
Thats a misnomer as soon as you factor in DDR3 costs...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
either way the op has stated he is a gamer

so he should be looking at a wolfdale imo



how many people on here had a q6600 3 months ago? 60%+ maybe?

everybody has E8XXX chips now for one reason...
they all got quads before and realised that they dont utilise the majority of the chip
 
And what about people who have bought the 8 series dualcore, clocking them to over 4ghz and still going back to Quads.
Hex himself said wanted to see what 4ghz was like, said nothing to write home about and went back to quad.
No way would I swap my quad for a duallie.
 
rjkoneill said:
either way the op has stated he is a gamer

so he should be looking at a wolfdale imo



how many people on here had a q6600 3 months ago? 60%+ maybe?

everybody has E8XXX chips now for one reason...
they all got quads before and realised that they dont utilise the majority of the chip
Click to expand...

Exactly the same can be said of the E8XXX CPU's.

Look at reviews comparing gaming at high res with AA/Anniso, nothing out there is CPU limited, it is all down to your GPU.

So having an E8500 @ 4.25Ghz doesn't really gain you anything over a Quad @ 3.2Ghz+

I would rather have two idling cores ready for when more games start using them, than a whole bunch of extra cycles that neither use nor ornament when high res gaming.
 
HeX said:
nothing out there is CPU limited, it is all down to your GPU.
Click to expand...

Except Crysis

*sorry, had to say it :)*

Its true though, and annoyingly so... I will admit I like the game but my blimmin quad will not go higher than 3.2 and the game is still help back more than when I had an e8500 at 3.8...

I am now tempted to once again change processors. I honestly think I should just fork out for a Q9650 and have the best balance of high clocks and number of cores.
 
ffallic said:
Except Crysis

*sorry, had to say it :)*

Its true though, and annoyingly so... I will admit I like the game but my blimmin quad will not go higher than 3.2 and the game is still help back more than when I had an e8500 at 3.8...

I am now tempted to once again change processors. I honestly think I should just fork out for a Q9650 and have the best balance of high clocks and number of cores.
Click to expand...

Can't say I saw that in Crysis myself, if you try some of the later levels (like Mine, where all the mountain is collapsing), I find it plays far smoother on the quad than the high clocked dualie.

The Crysis benchmark loop does run faster on the dualie no question, but the actual game is imho deffo smoother on the quad.
 
HeX said:
Exactly the same can be said of the E8XXX CPU's.

Look at reviews comparing gaming at high res with AA/Anniso, nothing out there is CPU limited, it is all down to your GPU.

So having an E8500 @ 4.25Ghz doesn't really gain you anything over a Quad @ 3.2Ghz+

I would rather have two idling cores ready for when more games start using them, than a whole bunch of extra cycles that neither use nor ornament when high res gaming.
Click to expand...

exactly what ive been trying to say, its mostly GPU limited in new games, only improvements for higher clocked duals are in old games, where FPS is insanely high anyway...

but price is important aswell, and when 8400 and Q6600 are same price, i dont see why not to get the quad...

however the newer 45nm are much more expensive, so to me quad vs dual,

assuming dual is 8400/8500

vs Q6600 = Quad wins
vs Q9550 = Dual wins

because i do agree the Q9*** is an extra premium, that is not worth it if you are only gaming..

although lots of people have huge problems buying a 65nm over 45nm because they think the difference is that big when its really not that much clock for clock...

so anyway,

get the Q6600, if your almost only gaming get 8400, and if your doing any video editing, get the Q6600 or if your extreme editing, get the Q9550 and clock it to 4Ghz minimum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom