Which is faster

[osullivanpt]

An i7 920 at stock of a Q9550 at 3.6?

 

[HazardO]

Depends on what for. If an application can use more than 4 threads, the i7 wins, otherwise the Q9550. If you are running several things at the same time, on balance, the i7 wins.

 

[sturmtruppe]

if you're using it for gaming, the q9550 wins hands down as it will actually used the extra clock, whereas i7's extra 4 threads won't make a difference.

 

[SfnX]

depends on what your using/what games your playing and if your gonna overclock in the future. check some benchmark comparisons

 

[osullivanpt]

Thanks

 

['Wes]

Q9550 i'd bet.

 

[cmndr_andi]

I agree that the Q9550 @ 3.6 will be faster than the i7 @ 2.66 in most circumstances. However, if you have the cooling to get a Q9550 up to 3.6GHz, then you should be able to give the i7 a decent overclock too (maybe ~3.3). In that case the i7 should be faster in all situations.

 

[DIABLO]

The Q9550 by brute force of megahertz.

 

[McstylisT]

In the real world i would say the Q9550 , just as it kicks 3.4ghz of power. However in benchmarking tests id think it would be close.

McT

 

[gurusan]

pretty sure the 9550 will be significantly faster in nearly all applications.

 

[Richy1204]

+1 Q9550

 

[DavieJG]

crazy comparison. cpu's can only be compared clock for clock really. The i7 can hit good speeds on the stock cooler so why would you run it at stock if you have the expertise to take a core 2 quad to 3.6?

 

[NeoVo]

crazy comparison. cpu's can only be compared clock for clock really. The i7 can hit good speeds on the stock cooler so why would you run it at stock if you have the expertise to take a core 2 quad to 3.6?

Thats what i was thinking, seems a pretty silly comparison.