• 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.

q9650 over e8500

GJ02

GJ02

GJ02

Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2007
Posts
6,419
Location
.
what sort of performance increase would i see from a q9650 over my current 8500
was thinking about buying the 9650 last week and now its in weekend deal it seems like maybe i should.
whats your thoughts ?
 
if the game supports quad core u get good performance. u can overclock q9650 4ghz ~4.2 easily with pq5 mob or something like it. but i see u have e8500 already just keep it man maybe try overclock it more
 
Stick with the E8500. Won't see much of a gain unless you use it for coding etc.
Rather go for the i7 bundle @ £499.99 :eek:
 
If you need a quad, for video encoding or photo editing etc it'll come into its own, but if primarily gaming, theres no point changing the already good cpu you currently have.
 
Yeh there are very few games can utlise quad core, I guess if you are running apps in the background it'll make a bit difference.
 
Yep more and more games using quads, for instance recent quad using titles include Call of Duty world at war (think also CoD4) and Dawn of War 2. Support is only going to get better.
 
I got the opportunity to upgrade from an E8400 to a Q9650 for not too much money so I did. The change in games is slight (most games that is). FPS is higher on games not designed for quad core, but only slightly and I imagine this is due to double the cache memory. The system is much better at multitasking and generally feels very powerful and a bit nippier. However, the cost difference normally is not worth the change, you will notice a difference, especially games and other applications designed to make use of the extra cores, but not enough really to warrant the cost, unless of course you do a lot of encoding!
 
Well I have had the pleasure of owning both CPUs and can tell you there really is no noticeable difference in gaming.

All this talk of systems being "snappier", or "nippier", and games "smoother" is just a load of BS.
 
Actually, Quads have more cache memory than their counterparts, so this will have an inpact on gaming, may it be slight or not, it is still there.

Basicly what your saying is that we are all imagining the nippier feel of the quad core over the dual. Must be something in the water...

Actually I noticed a huge improvement in my system when I switched (which I don't bother mentioning normally), but most of that was due to a better motherboard than the quad core CPU, however I am sure the extra cores helped.
 
If it's not the cache then, it must be the extra cores that give the extra fps...

(With fps I'm talking about 3 or 4 fps higher, not 10 or 20 or 30, before you misunderstand that I'm saying the change is huge)

Point is there's still a difference.
 
Well it depends entirely on the game, a handful will shown small gains, most none at all.

I did say no "noticeable" difference. 3-5fps is not going to be noticeble to anyone.
 
Quads might have more cache, but isn't that devided over the cores? If a game uses two cores it has 2x3mb and not the whole 12mb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom