• 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.

E8600 or Q9550

valerian

valerian

valerian

Associate
Joined
8 Feb 2006
Posts
1,846
Location
Stafford
buying a new chip later today, which one and why, already got a q6600 g0, occasional highend gamer, so this is important!
 
Q9550 for me.

I'd rather have the extra cores than a few Mhz more speed.
 
I got a Q9550 last week, it's an excellent chip, so glad I got it :D

I was thinking of overclocking it, been playing C&C 3 and Crysis all weekend and they both ran excellently.

Now I can not see the point of doing it.
 
Tetsu said:
I'd get the e8600 but only because I have no use for the extra cores.
Click to expand...

I currently have an e6600, and i wan't to upgrade just for the hell of it. My choice would also be the e8600, no use for the extra cores...
 
I think people are crazy to be spending the guts of 200 quid on a dual-core CPU.
 
nothing, i just feel my system should be getting a more comfortable overclock, considering the individual parts
i think the q6600 is the bottleneck (may be wrong here) but, i'm hoping the 45nm chips will be cooler, as well as being a higher speed to start with, i.e 2.83 natively instead of 2.4 65nm and lower fsb speed
any thoughts here preferably someone who has done the same changes
 
Get a decent mobo and then you wouldn't have to waste near 200 notes on a dual-core ;)
 
O.k so heres a question, how much quicker would a stock Q9550 be than a Q6600 @ 3.6.

I would vote the overclocked Q6600 would wipe the floor until you start overclocking the Q9550 of course.

If not I want one too!! :cool:
 
Loowi_ashley said:
O.k so heres a question, how much quicker would a stock Q9550 be than a Q6600 @ 3.6.

I would vote the overclocked Q6600 would wipe the floor until you start overclocking the Q9550 of course.

If not I want one too!! :cool:
Click to expand...

How can you fairly compare a stock Quad to a clocked Quad ?.

(Although it would still be faster at lower clock but at what clock difference/gap who knows).

Clock for clock the 45nm will kill the old 65nm, it had newer Extensions and larger Cache.

Also runs Cooler in return which means you have PC quieter. :)
 
Cob said:
I think people are crazy to be spending the guts of 200 quid on a dual-core CPU.
Click to expand...

I think its pointless buying a quad core CPU for a gaming rig where there isn't many games (or any at all) that use two cores to the max, let alone 4!

E8500/E8600 > Quad for me if I build another PC.

Although its likely to be a Mac Pro.
 
Well if your buying an E8600 thinking it's a cool running chip then think again.

Once you pass 1.35v things really tend to heat up quickly

4.3Ghz 60C max load with 1.35v

4.4Ghz 71C+ max load with 1.4v

Using an Ultima 90i with 2 x Yate Loon 120mm 1650rpm fans in a push pull config.
 
Cob said:
Get a decent mobo and then you wouldn't have to waste near 200 notes on a dual-core ;)
Click to expand...

wouldn't buying a decent mobo enable you to get far more out of a 8600 E0? How could a 8600 E0 at 4.5 Ghz be compared to the said quad - when the objective of the build is primarily for gaming?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom