-
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.
What's the fastest CPU I could put on my MB?
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Product page on Asus is down for me, can't check the CPU suppost list.
I would leave it as it is, the Q6600 is considered the best chip to overclock anyway. If you want more performance, consider upgrading your GPU, or move onto Sandy Bridge.
I would leave it as it is, the Q6600 is considered the best chip to overclock anyway. If you want more performance, consider upgrading your GPU, or move onto Sandy Bridge.
OK, ta! Just wondered if there was an obvious 30-40% speed improvement to be had by putting in a different CPU.
And yes, GPU's have moved on a bit since I built this system.
That all said, currently, I've not found anything I can't run on highest settings!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Basically, no.
The only other 775 chips would be, from recollection Q9xxx quads, I think there were slightly fast like 9650 versions with more cache but, meh, they are realistically a very minor upgrade over a Q6600, you might get a better overclock out of them, closer to 4Ghz but, seriously meh.
For single/two threaded things, maybe like Skyrim its really fast enough anyway and the only chips that are a really big step up single thread speed wise would be a i5/i7, in terms of 3-4 threaded games at least, A q6600 has more than enough power.
30-40% isn't going to come unless you go what would realistically be the only sane option right now, which is a 2500k(in terms of upgrade, a AMD x4/x6 setup is still cheap with awesome performance for 99% of home use and cheaper overall than a 2500k) but in terms of an upgrade from an existing quad, 2500k minimum.
The only other 775 chips would be, from recollection Q9xxx quads, I think there were slightly fast like 9650 versions with more cache but, meh, they are realistically a very minor upgrade over a Q6600, you might get a better overclock out of them, closer to 4Ghz but, seriously meh.
For single/two threaded things, maybe like Skyrim its really fast enough anyway and the only chips that are a really big step up single thread speed wise would be a i5/i7, in terms of 3-4 threaded games at least, A q6600 has more than enough power.
30-40% isn't going to come unless you go what would realistically be the only sane option right now, which is a 2500k(in terms of upgrade, a AMD x4/x6 setup is still cheap with awesome performance for 99% of home use and cheaper overall than a 2500k) but in terms of an upgrade from an existing quad, 2500k minimum.
OK! So basically CPU wise, I'm about as good as I can do. GPU wise there's obviously room to improve if/as/when required.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
The Q9xxx series will be better, but not by enough to justify the cost of upgrading to.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,159
- Location
- EU...
If there's nothing you can't run on max settings, why do you care about getting more performance? You won't notice it anyway!
Don't think so, I have my benchmarks and test results from when I was on a Q6600. I went to a Q9550 and put it to the same clocks and did the same benchmarks to compare. It wasn't that much faster (5-10%) in them. Those CPU's were just a more efficient design but no major perforrmance increases like 30-40%
Going to the new Sandy Bridge CPU's would probably give you that performance increase only in certain programs where you are currently CPU limited.
Stick with what you got and upgrade the GPU when you need to and when the CPU starts becoming a bottleneck then that'll justify the system upgrade.
^^ I found a big difference going from a 3.6gig Q6600 to a Q9550 @ 3.825gig (now 4gig) with my SLI setup tbh, not sure if its the extra cache or what but benchmarks especially are quite a bit higher (not so much difference with a single card tho).
However off the top of my head I don't think theres much advantage going to a 45nm quad on the motherboard in the OP.
However off the top of my head I don't think theres much advantage going to a 45nm quad on the motherboard in the OP.
Last edited:
The fastest processor the P5Q-Pro can take is the QX9770. 3200MHz stock speed, 400MHz FSB. It's the only skt 775 quad with 400 FSB and has an unlocked multiplier.
I had one in my P5Q-PRO, and it was fully recognised by the BIOS and booted windows. Didn't have it long enough to really play with though
I had one in my P5Q-PRO, and it was fully recognised by the BIOS and booted windows. Didn't have it long enough to really play with though
The fastest processor the P5Q-Pro can take is the QX9770. 3200MHz stock speed, 400MHz FSB. It's the only skt 775 quad with 400 FSB and has an unlocked multiplier.
I had one in my P5Q-PRO, and it was fully recognised by the BIOS and booted windows. Didn't have it long enough to really play with though
So refresh my memory because I'm rusty now with overclocking.
My Q6600 should be 9*266=2.4Ghz
So the FSB is 1066Mhz, and the cpu is at 1066/4=266mhz?
I'm running it at 8*425=3.4Ghz.
This QX9770 should be 8*400=3.2Ghz
So the FSB is 1600Mhz, and the cpu is at 1600/4=400mhz
What would I be reasonably expecting to get that CPU upto? Increase the multiplier upto 10 for 4Ghz?
If that's a safe bet, then that's about a 25% speed improvement, if not more. Which is pretty good. And that's ignoring all the other bells and whistles the chip has.
BUT, the chip seems VERY VERY expensive! WOW!
Seen a number of people suggesting the QX9650 instead, as it's suppose to be just as overclockable. But again, amazingly expensive.
Anyway, the machine is fast enough at the moment. I was just planning that if next year it starts getting taxed, is there a cheap way of giving it a boost. At the price of the QX9650/QX9770, the answer is clearly no!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
The answer is not clearly no, when you could probably pick up a QX9650 second hand for about £90-£100 and sell your own Q6600 for around £50-£60.
Indeed! If I could get a QX9650 for £100-130, and if it would definately give me >4Ghz, then I'd be interested.
Can't believe the QX9770 is still selling at around £1000
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Indeed! If I could get a QX9650 for £100-130, and if it would definately give me >4Ghz, then I'd be interested.
Can't believe the QX9770 is still selling at around £1000
Just keep your eye on the MM or place a wanted ad! You may just get lucky and find what your looking for.
Just keep your eye on the MM or place a wanted ad! You may just get lucky and find what your looking for.
Cheers. There's no imminent need at the moment as the machine is still fast enough. And TBH I'd probably upgrade the GPU first. But if it starts to have problems later next year, seems a QX9650 or QX9770 might be worth a look!
Cheers for the help.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 7,490
Your welcome buddy! A little upgrade is always nice to keep the interest alive.
Interesting question!? Speedstep reduces the bus speed doesn't it? So if you have 10x400, then maybe it still happily reduces it down, eg: to 10x200.
God knows what happens if you've overclocked the bus though, and say you're running it at 10x420!?!
General advice is to turn it off though for high overclocks!?
It reduces the multiplier, so like a Q6600 will sit at 6x266 idle (1.6GHz) and crank up to 9x266 (2.4GHz) under load. I've never had a QX cpu and I always wondered about that.
All my overclocks have had speedstep on and it's always been fine, I know a lot of users turn it off because they think it'll mess up the overclock or something.
I always wanted it on because I think that if it's at lets say 3.6GHz constantly, even though it's not being loaded it'll use more power and be a bit hotter. Unless someone can enlighten me