Q9400 vs Q9550

[Jack Flash]

I can save quite a bit of money going with a Q9400 instead of a Q9550, that much is clear.

I want to OC only to around 3GHz which it seems both will do fine.

The question comes down to the L2 cache. I don't fold and I don't do CAD. I'm making a Hackintosh and I will be doing regular computer duties, encoding some DVDs in Handbrake and playing games in Windows. (Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock and Call of Duty Modern Warfare)

I have a Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Motherboard and an eVGA 9800GTX+

I'd rather save money if I can. Will the 6MB L2 cache of the Q9400 be appreciably inferior to the 12MB L2 cache of the Q9550?

 

[soccerballtux]

I think it would. Not right now, but later. It's why I'm waiting until the q9550 becomes more affordable. Example-- Dual core Core 2 CPUs with 4+mB cache at 3.4Ghz (my processor's speed) run games in Vista like my games run in XP. If I try to play in Vista, however, I'm severely CPU limited with the new WDDM [Vista's] method of accessing graphics cards.

I'd also go for the q9550 because in a year you might wish you had 3.7Ghz instead of 3.0Ghz. Especially if you're doing video encoding and gaming. It's only an extra $50.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I think it would. Not right now, but later. It's why I'm waiting until the q9550 becomes more affordable. Example-- Dual core Core 2 CPUs with 4+mB cache at 3.4Ghz (my processor's speed) run games in Vista like my games run in XP. If I try to play in Vista, however, I'm severely CPU limited with the new WDDM [Vista's] method of accessing graphics cards.

I'd also go for the q9550 because in a year you might wish you had 3.7Ghz instead of 3.0Ghz. Especially if you're doing video encoding and gaming. It's only an extra $50.

Well the Q9400 is $180 at MicroCenter. The Q9550 is $275 on Amazon. That's getting close to $100 difference.

I'm not a huge speed junkie, I just want a solid processor. Are there any benchmarks showing the affect of L2 cache?

 

[nyker96]

i think that extra 6mb cache will net about 10-15% in some apps, not the ones you mentioned though. encoding doesn't get effected as much, push it to 3,5 and you as good as a 3. 9550 probably better.

 

[Big Lar]

There was a thread floating around here about a month or so ago about the difference between 6 and 12mb chips and games, suffice to say there was about 2fps max difference in games between the 2.

That said and having run a Q9400 for several months and the amount of the price difference, if I were to do it over again, I would still go for the Q9400 at this stage of the game. IMHO, who can tell 2fps in a game? I dual boot Vista 32 and Win7 64 and play games on both, I don't see much of a difference between the 2 if any at all. I realise I am only talking gaming here, but in reality the chip in my sig seems just as fast as the E3110 I previously ran at 4300.

Larry

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The Q9400 is fine and one hell of a deal at $180 right now. At that price difference you wouldn't miss the extra cache in the Q9550 at all. In games, at the same clock speed, the cache would make about a 5% difference in performance. For encoding and other tasks, there wouldn't really be any difference at all.

Q9400 vs. Q9450
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

 

[AstroManLuca]

Also, I doubt the Q9550 will ever actually drop in price very much before the entire LGA 775 platform is obsolete. It's the last, greatest CPU for that socket, and everyone seems to be keen on either getting one or getting a lower-end 775 CPU and then upgrading to a Q9550 later.

Sort of like how S939 owners inexplicably pay tons of money for S939 Athlon 64 X2s.

 

[ElBurro]

Mostly you probably won't see that much of a difference. Of course like so many things it will largely depend on the app. I think I saw someone do a speed comparison between 6MB and 12MB L2. I think it was extremetech but I can't remember for sure.

 

[sao123]

6MB extra L2...with gaming you might not see that much difference... but encoding dvd video can make a world of difference.

if you were purely gaming, id suggest to you the E8400, but since you are encoding video... if you intend to use this computer for more than 2-3 years ( i replace mine every 5-6) then the higher CPU is worth it in the long run.

 

[dbcooper1]

Originally posted by: sao123
6MB extra L2...with gaming you might not see that much difference... but encoding dvd video can make a world of difference.

if you were purely gaming, id suggest to you the E8400, but since you are encoding video... if you intend to use this computer for more than 2-3 years ( i replace mine every 5-6) then the higher CPU is worth it in the long run.

I've seen the opposite- gaming sees more of a difference from the increased cache and makes virtually no difference with encoding video.

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Also, I doubt the Q9550 will ever actually drop in price very much before the entire LGA 775 platform is obsolete. It's the last, greatest CPU for that socket, and everyone seems to be keen on either getting one or getting a lower-end 775 CPU and then upgrading to a Q9550 later.

Sort of like how S939 owners inexplicably pay tons of money for S939 Athlon 64 X2s.

Good point.

However, Intel has a helluva lot more production capacity than AMD did. AMD didn't really have a choice when they switched sockets, they had to put all their capacity on the AM2 chips.

Intel could have a fab churning out 775 chips and not hurt production too much if at all on their i7, i5 and whatever else they've got coming chips.

Of course I could be wrong, I wasn't paying attention to the industry the last time Intel switched sockets.