Q6600 or Q9550?

[Salvador]

I'm buying a new gaming rig now and considering that i7 is out, which chip should I get? I'm looking at the Q9550, but it's very pricey compared to the Q6600. If I'm not overclocking, do you think that I'd see a real difference between the Q6600 and the Q9550? The most cpu intensive task that I plan on doing with it is gaming. I don't edit video or do anything more cpu intensive.

Would the Q9550 future proof me more than the Q6600 if I'm buying now? Money is not a big issue, but I'm just wondering if I'm pissing it away by spending more than a $100 more for the Q9550.

 

[Duvie]

Have you thought about the Q8200? 2.33ghz stock but it is a yorkfield which clock for clock was a hair better then the kentsfield..It is a 45nm part....

the only knock may be the size of the L2 cache, but I dont know how much a difference that makes in the gaming world...may just offset the fact of the clock to clock boost the yorkfield gets.

other then that there are Q9300's and Q9400's in between the 2...

 

[BlueBlazer]

I would say the Q9550... Many games simply thrive on large caches and clock speed.

 

[dguy6789]

Performance is a tad better on the Q9550, overclockability is higher, runs cooler, uses less electricity. If that's worth the price difference to you, then go for it. I doubt there will ever be a program or game that a Q9550 will be able to run that a Q6600 won't be able to though.

 

[yh125d]

If you're really only doing gaming, theres no need for a quad. A e8400 would be faster in games at stock speeds, as well as much better at overclocking

 

[TC91]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Performance is a tad better on the Q9550, overclockability is higher, runs cooler, uses less electricity. If that's worth the price difference to you, then go for it. I doubt there will ever be a program or game that a Q9550 will be able to run that a Q6600 won't be able to though.

+1

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: yh125d
If you're really only doing gaming, theres no need for a quad. A e8400 would be faster in games at stock speeds, as well as much better at overclocking

Id go with this suggestion, or the Q6600 if you had to have a quad.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: TC91

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Performance is a tad better on the Q9550, overclockability is higher, runs cooler, uses less electricity. If that's worth the price difference to you, then go for it. I doubt there will ever be a program or game that a Q9550 will be able to run that a Q6600 won't be able to though.

+1

I went with the Q9550 but I got it cheap.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: yh125d
If you're really only doing gaming, theres no need for a quad. A e8400 would be faster in games at stock speeds, as well as much better at overclocking

Id go with this suggestion, or the Q6600 if you had to have a quad.

I'm with them. Especially since it seemed you're not really planning on OC'ing. It makes more sense to get a faster C2D than to spend the money on a C2Q. Of course, it depends on what games you plan on playing and if they're optimized to use quad cores or not (GTA 4/FC2/Sup Com/etc.). I like my Q6600 quite a bit, but I do have it at 3.0 and plan to push it a bit further, heat allowing.

 

[dguy6789]

I disagree. I think there's no reason not to get a quad if you can afford it and you're not looking for an ultra cool or ultra quiet solution. Although a higher clocked dual can run single and dual threaded games faster, a stock Q6600 is fast enough for all games out today anyway. In the future, the Q6600 at stock will trounce even heavily overclocked duals in games that use three or four threads effectively. Doesn't make sense to me to get a dual if you can afford a quad.

Lots of people also overlook the non gaming specifics of quads. The fact is that quads offer a more responsive computing experience in general with far more resources at your disposal. Do anything that fully utilizes two cores and your dual core machine is at it's knees, a quad still has enough power left to play all those modern games that work just fine on a dual core and run them just as well as if you weren't performing the other task at all(Or anything else). It really is twice the processing resources for doing everything.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I disagree. I think there's no reason not to get a quad if you can afford it and you're not looking for an ultra cool or ultra quiet solution. Although a higher clocked dual can run single and dual threaded games faster, a stock Q6600 is fast enough for all games out today anyway. In the future, the Q6600 at stock will trounce even heavily overclocked duals in games that use three or four threads effectively. Doesn't make sense to me to get a dual if you can afford a quad.

Lots of people also overlook the non gaming specifics of quads. The fact is that quads offer a more responsive computing experience in general with far more resources at your disposal. Do anything that fully utilizes two cores and your dual core machine is at it's knees, a quad still has enough power left to play all those modern games that work just fine on a dual core and run them just as well as if you weren't performing the other task at all(Or anything else). It really is twice the processing resources for doing everything.

I agree. I found watching something on my pvr and doing a bunch of other stuff my system would stutter and slowdown on my dual core. No such problem with the Quad. And gaming has been no issue in performance.

 

[Elusiv1]

I encoded a 2 hour movie last night from AVI to MPEG-2 in 10 minutes, i know on a single core i was taking around an hour and a half or more to convert..

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I disagree. I think there's no reason not to get a quad if you can afford it and you're not looking for an ultra cool or ultra quiet solution. Although a higher clocked dual can run single and dual threaded games faster, a stock Q6600 is fast enough for all games out today anyway. In the future, the Q6600 at stock will trounce even heavily overclocked duals in games that use three or four threads effectively. Doesn't make sense to me to get a dual if you can afford a quad.

Lots of people also overlook the non gaming specifics of quads. The fact is that quads offer a more responsive computing experience in general with far more resources at your disposal. Do anything that fully utilizes two cores and your dual core machine is at it's knees, a quad still has enough power left to play all those modern games that work just fine on a dual core and run them just as well as if you weren't performing the other task at all(Or anything else). It really is twice the processing resources for doing everything.

I agree. I found watching something on my pvr and doing a bunch of other stuff my system would stutter and slowdown on my dual core. No such problem with the Quad. And gaming has been no issue in performance.

I think there is a problem with this idea though. The Q6600 at 2.4 (the OP seems like he doesn't want to OC) WILL bottleneck a higher end GPU eventually (especially when it comes to dual GPUs). It will simply not give the GPU enough data to operate at its best.

 

[dbcooper1]

If it comes down to the Q6600 vs the Q9550, i'd go with the 9550. Not only does it cost more to operate the 6600 but in the warmer months your A/C has to get rid of the excess heat. So, you're paying for it twice and at some point you'll break even on the additional cost if you run it long enough. If it's cold more than hot where you are, I guess it's a different story..

 

[Infrnl]

I would say go for whichever one you can get cheaper; unless you are set on a Q9550. You will get about the same performance and OC. I do not think its worth the price difference for the Q9550; LOL even though I have one but got a good deal on it. I dont think the 9550 is any more future proof than the 6600 espcially since everything is switching to the new sockets anyway. Either way you go; you will be satisfied and will still last you quite a while before anything new will have much more performance for the money.

EdIT: just reread the op and want to add; Even if you dont do much, I think quad is worth the cost. I have noticed a lot on a quad compared to dual core and I dont do a whole lot myself. I would also suggest overclocking a bit just to get your moneys worth, but even stock with either chip; you will be happy and would not really see much difference between the 2.

 

[TidusZ]

For all those downplaying the Q9550, I have mine at 4.25 on 1.392 volts atm, just got the chip on the 23rd and haven't had much time to fiddle with it. only ran prime95 for 45 minutes so far but no errors yet, and I imagine I'll get ~4.3 stable no problem. 4.15 was stable x14 hours last night overnight. This is all on air, and I'd like to see overclocks like this on a q6600, or even an e8400 (Yes some e8400's will do it but not all).

 

[Dream Operator]

Side note on quads. GTAIV recommends a quad core. It certainly taxes mine. I will say that it doesn't seem to be coded very well, it doesn't distribute evenly. I believe it uses 3 threads.

@TidusZ Nice OC! Might have to look at that myself. Speed of the best duals, in a quad!

 

[Denithor]

Xbitlabs: Dual versus Quad shootout in games

No need for quad-core in 95% of today's games.

Faster dual-core will be better for you especially because you don't plan to overclock.

 

[gizbug]

Why was the Q6600 discontinued? Might way into your buying decision.

 

[dguy6789]

Q6600 was discontinued for the same reason that other Conroe based cpus were discontinued.

I also want to mention that people need to stop taking these benchmarks as absolute law. Most people don't play games with every single other program turned off and in game sound turned off.

A better benchmark would be to see how a game runs with an antivirus on, a messenger or two on, a media player, maybe a web browser open, and maybe a couple programs that have auto update enabled.

 

[gizbug]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Q6600 was discontinued for the same reason that other Conroe based cpus were discontinued.

elaborate

 

[dbcooper1]

The 65nm series is being phased out in favor of the newer more power efficient 45nm chips.

 

[Infrnl]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
For all those downplaying the Q9550, I have mine at 4.25 on 1.392 volts atm, just got the chip on the 23rd and haven't had much time to fiddle with it. only ran prime95 for 45 minutes so far but no errors yet, and I imagine I'll get ~4.3 stable no problem. 4.15 was stable x14 hours last night overnight. This is all on air, and I'd like to see overclocks like this on a q6600, or even an e8400 (Yes some e8400's will do it but not all).

what mobo & ram are you using? Nice results!

 

[TidusZ]

I am using the gigabyte-UD3R, which I highly recommend over the much touted asus p5q pro. 2x2gb OCZ hpc ddr2-1066 for the ram (only running at 1000 atm), and for cooling my secret weapon is the coolermaster haf 932 case, and I have a true 120 black with a scythe 1600rpm and antec tricool push/pull. Heatsink and processor are sanded to pretty near mirror finish (this took just under ten hours, but the case was a gift for christmas so I was sitting on the hardware for 2 days) with OCZ Freeze. I was able to get 4.1 with very minor adjustment to motherboard voltages but past that I needed to raise voltages to get past 482 fsb.

4 hours stable so far, will go for 4.3 tmrw morning if all goes well. 4.25 X 4 hrs

Sidenote: Anyone know of a spot I can upload pictures with decent quality? Photobucket really shrinks down the pictures pretty badly.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Have you thought about the Q8200? 2.33ghz stock but it is a yorkfield which clock for clock was a hair better then the kentsfield..It is a 45nm part....

the only knock may be the size of the L2 cache, but I dont know how much a difference that makes in the gaming world...may just offset the fact of the clock to clock boost the yorkfield gets.

other then that there are Q9300's and Q9400's in between the 2...

Yay! My CPU!

Anyway, if you read up on most benchmarks, the Q8200 beats out the Q6600 by a good margin. Not to mention it keeps much cooler and less power hungry.

The diminshed L2 cache doesn't have much effect as i think it does. I just think that after a point, added cache doesn't make too big of a change. The difference between the E2160 and the E7300 at 2.6ghz can be quite noticeable, but the difference between the E8400 and the E7300 at 3.2Ghz wont see much of a difference.