PII 940 vs Q9550

darkstroke · 4 Mar 2009 at 07:15

I may be buying a cpu, and these two are in competition. The PII keeps up with the Q9550 at stock but from what I've seen, it doesn't have as much overclocking head room (esp on stock volts) and runs hotter. The q9550 seems to be nearly as fast as an i7, and as I am only buying mb+cpu, much cheaper. Since the q9550 is about £45 more expensive than the pII though, I thought I'd ask for opinions.

Thanks, darkstroke

FaceplantSi · 4 Mar 2009 at 11:31

I used to be a confirmed AMD man but went to Intel last year with the Q9550. I only run mine at 3.4GHz but that was the easiest OC ever as all I had to do was up the FSB to 400MHz to achieve it, but I know others have have got to around 3.8GHz stable on air with relative ease (and a good cooler) and over 4GHz on water. Can't comment on the PII as not used one yet, but certainly very pleased with mine, and should also have a good service life as there really isnt much out there yet that needs 4 cores.

Deffo get the Q9550!

jimmybates · 4 Mar 2009 at 13:35

If you are going to overclock the Q9550 (which you should), definitely go that way.

darkstroke · 4 Mar 2009 at 14:59

Would probably overclock on stock volts, at which I've seen reports of the Q9550 at 3.48ghz. The PII on the other hand, has been said overclocks to nearly 3.8ghz stock volts but others have said this isn't actually stable.

mmj_uk · 4 Mar 2009 at 15:29

From the tests I've seen PII is clock for clock slightly better than a Q6600 which is based on the old Kentsfield core, the newer Yorkfield based C2Q are marginally better than both so in the end it would come down to overclocking.

Also worth bearing in mind is that PII's overclock worse running in full 64bit mode, so 32bit overclocks can be misleading.

Final8y · 4 Mar 2009 at 15:57

The P2 is closer to a QX9650 than a Q6600
A P1 already matches a Q6000 at 3.2 clock for clock.
http://www.techspot.com/review/137-amd-phenom2-x4-940-920/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=1

linktoinsanity · 4 Mar 2009 at 16:13

Looking at the Anandtech review the Core 2 Duos appear to do better than the Phenom II 940, so based on this I would have to go for the Q9550. I have a Q9650 which flies in everything that I use it for, so the Q9550 will be good as well.

Final8y · 4 Mar 2009 at 16:20

Mattf121 said:
Looking at the Anandtech review the Core 2 Duos appear to do better than the Phenom II 940, so based on this I would have to go for the Q9550. I have a Q9650 which flies in everything that I use it for, so the Q9550 will be good as well.

I would take a group of reviews to base judgement.
Funny enough the PII does worse in Anandtech review than the rest.

linktoinsanity · 4 Mar 2009 at 16:54

Final8y said:
I would take a group of reviews to base judgement.
Funny enough the PII does worse in Anandtech review than the rest.

But then I've noticed throughout your posts in multiple topics that you would excuse AMD anything. I've read in other reviews that the Phenom II is a good all rounder that is good value, in very few do they say it is actually more powerful.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/22

Note the "comparable to the Core 2 processors" statement.

http://icrontic.com/articles/amd-phenom-ii-review

Loses out to an overclocked Q6600.

Putting it down to Anandtech really doesn't do much for your cause. It's a good review as are the other two I've posted (top 2 google search, hardly selective). Both say the P2 is a good cpu, but both show the Intels to be stronger, even in some cases the Core 2s.

JonJ678 · 4 Mar 2009 at 18:28

The q9550 is beautiful. Overclocking it is really easy up to about 3.4ish, then starts to get slightly more confusing as more factors come into play. Mines sitting at 3.5 until I find more time to play with it, and I can't fault it on any level even at stock.

The q9650 is surely even better, especially than my C1 stepping version, but was a good 200 quid more expensive when I bought the computer. Id be a lot more tempted by i7 if I'd managed to slow this computer down with anything, but so far I haven't

marscay · 4 Mar 2009 at 20:15

unless you're a die hard AMD fan (which is pointless) or just fancy playing with something different you can't lose going the Intel route, better choice of boards and you know the 9550 will clock like snot ....P2 is a bit more of a raffle.

you're going to be happy with either though.

mrthingyx · 4 Mar 2009 at 20:24

Go for the cheapest of the two. Neither is bad, and both have merits/pitfalls.

From my reading the PII is cooler than the Q9550, but unless you absolutely need four cores at this point in time, I'd get an E8400 or 720 X3 and overclock those...

A dual core will - on average - clock further than a quad* and will yield very little performance difference in 90% of real-world applications (unless, of course, you absolutely have to encode 3 HD DIVXs whilst playing Crysis or whatever...)

Save the £100 you'd have spent on a quad core and spend the extra moolah on a nice graphics card or faster storage.

*Curiously, the 7750 x2 is the exception to this rule...

Final8y · 5 Mar 2009 at 03:45

Mattf121 said:
But then I've noticed throughout your posts in multiple topics that you would excuse AMD anything. I've read in other reviews that the Phenom II is a good all rounder that is good value, in very few do they say it is actually more powerful.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/22

Note the "comparable to the Core 2 processors" statement.

http://icrontic.com/articles/amd-phenom-ii-review

Loses out to an overclocked Q6600.

Putting it down to Anandtech really doesn't do much for your cause. It's a good review as are the other two I've posted (top 2 google search, hardly selective). Both say the P2 is a good cpu, but both show the Intels to be stronger, even in some cases the Core 2s.

No i would not excuse AMD everything & it just shows your bias with such a comment as much as you accuse me of having.
Your 2 top to google claim is false unless you can give me the search string you used to achieve getting icrontic at the top, seeing as its not in the bunch of common site the most here & XS go for reviews over the years & is the first time that i have been there myself.

Also in most of the reviews from the well known sites the P2 is closer to the Q9650-Q9550 & with that fact & your claim of the P2 in relation to the overclocked Q6000 then what does that say for the Q9650-Q9550 when the Q6600 is overclocked to equal the default speed of the Q9650-Q9550. You & may of well got an Q6000 & overclock it instead of buying a Q9650-Q9550

exhumedye · 5 Mar 2009 at 04:20

Who really cares about your fetish for amd and his fetish for intel, you can't marry your pc neither can you bone it, so stop whining and play some games or do some media work.

Final8y · 5 Mar 2009 at 04:23

exhumedye said:
Who really cares about your fetish for amd and his fetish for intel, you can't marry your pc neither can you bone it, so stop whining and play some games or do some media work.

Exactly! but he cared enough to bring it up.

If the P2 was not what it was, i would be on an I7 myself & i have said so in the past even before both CPUs were out.

linktoinsanity · 5 Mar 2009 at 10:24

Final8y said:
No i would not excuse AMD everything & it just shows your bias with such a comment as much as you accuse me of having.
Your 2 top to google claim is false unless you can give me the search string you used to achieve getting icrontic at the top, seeing as its not in the bunch of common site the most here & XS go for reviews over the years & is the first time that i have been there myself.

"Phenom 2 review" in google, top two results, take a look.

Also in most of the reviews from the well known sites the P2 is closer to the Q9650-Q9550 & with that fact & your claim of the P2 in relation to the overclocked Q6000 then what does that say for the Q9650-Q9550 when the Q6600 is overclocked to equal the default speed of the Q9650-Q9550. You & may of well got an Q6000 & overclock it instead of buying a Q9650-Q9550

The Q9xxx are based on the faster 45nm core, which is 5% (or something like that) faster clock for clock than the older 65nm cores so if an overclocked Q6600 @ 3Ghz can beat the Phenom II CPU in that way, I'm sure you can do the maths

This is not about whether I prefer Intel or not or whether you prefer AMD, it's about the facts that the reviews show. If you take a long enough look around I'm sure we could both hand pick reviews to support our own ends, but I'm trying to show the point that top two selections from google agree with my side.

I think overall the Phenom II is a good cpu as far as value goes, but atm the Intels seem to be the more powerful and the point of my posts are to give the OP my opinion which is as said, go with the Q9550.

Unless you write a good response to this though Finl8y (not "No AMD is better, look at this review google search {Phenom rules} and my other handpicked reviews and you'll see") I'm outta this thread.

StephenLawUK · 5 Mar 2009 at 11:38

E0 stepping Q9550 are really nice, 3.6ghz while undervolted from stock here with great temps of mid 20's idle and at a real push 40 load.

gurusan · 5 Mar 2009 at 11:45

Grab a Q9550 E0, most are doing over 4ghz with ease, unlike the PII.

Final8y · 5 Mar 2009 at 23:03

Mattf121 said:
"Phenom 2 review" in google, top two results, take a look.

The Q9xxx are based on the faster 45nm core, which is 5% (or something like that) faster clock for clock than the older 65nm cores so if an overclocked Q6600 @ 3Ghz can beat the Phenom II CPU in that way, I'm sure you can do the maths

This is not about whether I prefer Intel or not or whether you prefer AMD, it's about the facts that the reviews show. If you take a long enough look around I'm sure we could both hand pick reviews to support our own ends, but I'm trying to show the point that top two selections from google agree with my side.

I think overall the Phenom II is a good cpu as far as value goes, but atm the Intels seem to be the more powerful and the point of my posts are to give the OP my opinion which is as said, go with the Q9550.

Unless you write a good response to this though Finl8y (not "No AMD is better, look at this review google search {Phenom rules} and my other handpicked reviews and you'll see") I'm outta this thread.

3rd link down.

My links are not hand picked as they are from the common review sites that many here link to & know the reputation of, good & bad.

The results you provided is not common between the rest of the well known reputable review sites. looking at the avg from the well known sites put the p2 just below 9550,even tho OP said so with out any help from me. if that icrontic results was common then the OP would not of said what he did.

Also first hand user experience is also a factor that has to be taken to account with users who have both intel & AMD setup that is more predominant on other forums that i go to & do not mention the Q6000 as being anything to a P2 where they did when they were using a P1.
If you not going to over clock then the P2 would perform better & if your going to over clock why would you just want to overclock a Q6000 but not a P2.

I Also dont tell people to buy an AMD over a Intel i just point them to the info i know about AMD & then its up to them.

darkstroke · 6 Mar 2009 at 07:23

Thanks for replies everyone, have gone for the Q9550 with Asus P5Q Pro mobo.

cheers,
darkstroke