Q6600 or Q9550

Teki187 · 2 Jan 2009 at 21:14

Hiya

Based on this system:

- Corsair TX750
- GA-EP45-DS4
- 4x1gb Ballistix
- GTX 280 1gb
- XFI Gamer
- 2x250gb Seagate

Which processor would you advise? Money is tight so really don't want to spend unnecessarily.

Cheers

jak731 · 2 Jan 2009 at 21:16

uses?

Teki187 · 2 Jan 2009 at 21:17

Gaming mainly (things like Crysis, Fall Out 3, WoW etc)

jak731 · 2 Jan 2009 at 21:18

i would say e8400

Teki187 · 2 Jan 2009 at 21:20

Do you think a dual core will be too weak for future gaming, considering GTA4 requires a quad (I know it's not tuned properly for the PC)?

LabR@t · 2 Jan 2009 at 22:15

i just ordered 9550 if that helps you

explicit4u · 2 Jan 2009 at 23:19

Q9550 is what my brother is using and he owns/plays all the games you listed.

TerminatorUK · 3 Jan 2009 at 01:00

I'd go with the Q9550 because:

- The larger L2 cache is a decent advantage in games
- 45nm tech over the Q6600's 65nm means it runs cooler and for less energy
- If you pair it up with a decent mobo, it will overclock well and has the potential to reach 4Ghz

Peve · 3 Jan 2009 at 04:43

In my opinion the price between difference between the Q6600 and the Q9550 is not worth the performance difference. The price difference also to a degree negates any energy saving with the Q95550.

With i7 just out and slowing going to overtake the Core line do you really want to be spending any large amount of money on an older platform?

ShaolinDreams · 3 Jan 2009 at 09:01

E8400 then

Stonedofmoo · 3 Jan 2009 at 09:28

Peve said:
In my opinion the price between difference between the Q6600 and the Q9550 is not worth the performance difference.

No way near worth the difference considering a Q6600 goes for £110 or so in the MM.

Billy213 · 3 Jan 2009 at 12:41

I just got my Q9550 to 3.5hz and I have to say, it's performance is very very good. Cooled on an Arctic Cooling Pro it only 55 celcius on the hottest core after an hour of Prime95. Voltage is at 1.3. With a good cooler this has the potential to go very far.

Xandos · 3 Jan 2009 at 14:58

Q6600, the performance increase isn't worth the price if you're on a budget IMO.

Sean_UK · 3 Jan 2009 at 16:45

Xan_Molbjerg said:
increase isn't worth the price if you're on a budget

Agree.

Pav89 · 3 Jan 2009 at 18:43

Theres a competitor offering the Q6600 for £60 inc delivery! Just ordered! :eek:

ConnectionFX · 3 Jan 2009 at 18:46

Q9550 all the way baby... i have one and you wont be regret it. abit pricey though but i got mine a few months back when chip prices didnt rocket.

Still an amazing performing chip that kicks butt in games.

Pav89 "Q6600 for £60 inc delivery" you sure its not stolen lol?

Pav89 · 3 Jan 2009 at 18:59

Haha, a reputable retailer but not as good as OcUK tbf! Haha! Too good to be true, orders canceled! Ignore my posts!

littlepuppy · 3 Jan 2009 at 19:00

If money is tight q6600

If it isnt q9550 IMO...

Dont think you will notice a "dramatic" difference between them.. (as long as you OC the 6600 that is)

gazza0371 · 3 Jan 2009 at 19:03

Just got a 9550 myself and clocked to 3.6 without even really trying, runs very cool, etc. However I would expect the 6600 will more than suit your needs and is probably the best bet for the price.

PaulyD · 4 Jan 2009 at 05:15

Get the best you can.

Nothing last long in the PC world, but your sure get more back for it when you sell it