QX9650 vs Q6600

Alex R · 13 Sep 2010 at 17:12

Just had a QX9650 given to me and I was wondering what kind of increase I would see over my ageing Q6600 @ 3.6? See, I might well be too lazy (true) and or busy (little one) nowadays to swap the Q6600 out if there isn't a real difference. Looking for some encouragement really.

Drunkenmassacre · 13 Sep 2010 at 17:43

I can test it for you if you wish...?

AiiR · 13 Sep 2010 at 17:47

Better clock for clock, cooler and will clock higher. Speaks for itself I suppose.

WingZero30 · 13 Sep 2010 at 18:49

Alex what kind of cooler are you using for [email protected]?

Rroff · 13 Sep 2010 at 19:00

I went from a Q6600 @ 3.6gig to a Q9550 @ 3.825gig not expecting much difference but it was better in every way, less power used, cooler, windows booted noticeably quicker, decent performance increase in CPU bound benchmarks like 3D Marks 06 but not a huge difference in games maybe a little smoother.

WingZero30 · 13 Sep 2010 at 19:13

But Rroff would you still say the Q6600 is best bang for buck Quad cpu. I am running E6600 and in near future thinking of replacing with a quad. Should I go with Q6600? I was also considering Q9xx series but was told that they are still expensive.

Ezyryder · 13 Sep 2010 at 19:27

The thing is you can pick a second hand Q6600 for £70 whilst the Q9550 are double that and to be honest they are not double better and if you are going to spend £140 quid you better go i7

Alex R · 13 Sep 2010 at 20:09

WingZero30 said:
Alex what kind of cooler are you using for [email protected]?

Thanks for the replies. I have one of those corsair CPU water cooler things. Would that be good enough to take the QX9650 towards 4ghz? Otherwise, I still have my noctua air cooler somewhere. I do value the generally quieter corsair though. Looks like I will take the time to do the swap. I think I'll do a few before and after benchies as well - if I get the time that is.

WingZero30 · 13 Sep 2010 at 20:10

So is Q6600 just 2 x E6600 placed together?

Alex R · 19 Sep 2010 at 19:54

So the QX9650 is in and running apparently OK (prime, occt) at 4ghz (400x10).

I've done a quick run of 3dm6

q6600 = 18000
qx9650 = 20500

Doesn't seem a huge difference.

Rroff · 19 Sep 2010 at 19:59

I get 20554 with a 3.825gig Q9550 so that seems a little low tho not hugely - but thats a 2000 point increase on CPU alone which isn't easy to get (check the CPU score part if you have it from the old one to compare).

thingemajib · 19 Sep 2010 at 20:00

well the 9650 is faster than the 6600. Fact.

If its been 'given' to you, then i dont really see why you're hesitant about the upgrade.
Once money comes into it, then its a different story. Its not worth significantly more than the 6600 because then you might as well bite the bullet and go I5/I7

Alex R · 19 Sep 2010 at 20:19

thingemajib said:
well the 9650 is faster than the 6600. Fact.

If its been 'given' to you, then i dont really see why you're hesitant about the upgrade.
Once money comes into it, then its a different story. Its not worth significantly more than the 6600 because then you might as well bite the bullet and go I5/I7

Not hesitant to upgrade, I just did... Nor arguing that it isn't faster just reporting as I said I would. Also, highlighting to all those people on Q6600 that it is still a good CPU.

Oh, and it wasn't "given" to me, it was given to me.

Rroff · 19 Sep 2010 at 21:14

Yup Q6600 is still a great CPU. I only upgraded because my dad wanted a quad core and it gave me an excuse.

Sean_UK · 20 Sep 2010 at 20:07

Alex R said:
Just had a QX9650 given to me and I was wondering what kind of increase I would see over my ageing Q6600 @ 3.6?

You own a very good 775 motherboard which is more than capable of rinsing out 4Ghz+, however gaming wise you will only notice the slight performance increase with select few titles. For example current Q9650 @ 4.2 gained a very healthy fps increase with GTAIV over my former Q6600 @ 3.7GHz. Back when I made the switch; sold my 3.7Ghz capable Q6600 for £140+ to fund purchasing Q9650 for £189.99, so it seemed well worth the gamble for very little outlay. Would I do the same now what with I5/I7 so well established... hell no!

So if you have the time what harm can it do to try it out this 'free' QX9650 within your system, and should it be capable of 4GHz+ with sensible volts; very decent 2nd hand value.

Big.Wayne · 20 Sep 2010 at 20:32

Rroff said:
I only upgraded because my dad wanted a quad core and it gave me an excuse.

The Truth said:
I was clucking for a 45nm Yorkfield so palmed off my older 65nm Kentsfield on my father who didn't know any better!

setter · 20 Sep 2010 at 20:34

Had both a q6600 and q9550 at 3.8ghz, only changed to the q9550 as i fancied trying one out. Certainy ran a lot cooler than the q6600 though.

Big.Wayne · 20 Sep 2010 at 21:01

Hey Alex R

Alex R said:
Just had a QX9650 given to me

Nice! . . . who gave you a Intel® Core™2 Quad eXtreme QX9650 :eek:

Alex R said:
I was wondering what kind of increase I would see over my ageing Q6600 @ 3.6?

Nothing you would really notice outside of benchmarks . . . extra cache helps a little and an unlocked multi is pretty cool for "tinkering" but real-world nothing special really . . .

Alex R said:
I might well be too lazy (true) and or busy (little one) nowadays to swap the Q6600 out if there isn't a real difference

Get that up @ auction and get the beers in dude!

Alex R said:
Looking for some encouragement really.

Sell, Sell, Sell! :cool:

jaybee · 20 Sep 2010 at 21:11

q6600 are power hogs and run hot in comparison. However, you can pick them up cheap now. I still run one, and plan to for another year or so to be honest. Probably the longest I will ever keep a CPU, which speak for itself. A very capable chip.

Harpss1ngh · 21 Sep 2010 at 00:04

If you already didn't have the qx9650 I'd say stick to the q6600 as the price the qx9650's go for isn't worth it the small performance increase and overclock... However, as you say you already have one, I'd stick with the qx9650 and sell the q6600...