Q9550 a worthy upgrade over Q6600?

[Bryf50]

I've notice the price of the Q9550 has went down quite a bit and I think I'm ready to upgrade. My q6600 OCed to 3ghz and if I get the Q9550 chances are ill take it to 3.6ghz. Would this upgrade be worth it or should I hold out and see if i can ever afford an i7?

 

[dguy6789]

In my opinion, no. With a 3Ghz Kentsfield, I would just wait until i7's successor to upgrade. A 3Ghz Quad is still way ahead of the curve for just about anything.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

If you can find a buyer to purchase your Q6600 for $135+, then go for it.

It will definitely stave off any upgrades for a long time.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Wait for the i7. I oc'ed a q9400 to 4.0ghz and my 3dmark vantage cpu score was around 14000. My i7 920 stock 2.66 3dmark vantage cpu score is around 17000. i7 also has hyper threading and some other goodies. I get the best of both worlds lower power consumption and faster cpu. They arent in the same league. Having said that I was never pushing my q9400 with anything I did but its nice just to say:
my rig
i7 920 cpu
intel dx58SO mobo
6 gb corsair dominator ram
evga gtx 280
atcs 840 case
antec trupower quattro 850w power supply
xigmatek dark knight heatsink

 

[spinejam]

i switched from a q6600@3.6 to a q9550@4.0 and the only benefit i've seen is w/ video-crunching. (lower temps too!)

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Wait for the i7. I oc'ed a q9400 to 4.0ghz and my 3dmark vantage cpu score was around 14000. My i7 920 stock 2.66 3dmark vantage cpu score is around 17000.

3dmark scores are pretty meaningless, though. In the real world, a 4GHz Q9400 will outperform a stock i7 920 in most (if not all) games. As far as gaming is concerned, going from a 4GHz C2Q to an i7 is a pointless upgrade - there isn't a single game out there that isn't playable with a 4GHz C2Q.

To the OP, what are you using this computer for?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Wait for the i7. I oc'ed a q9400 to 4.0ghz and my 3dmark vantage cpu score was around 14000. My i7 920 stock 2.66 3dmark vantage cpu score is around 17000.

3dmark scores are pretty meaningless, though. In the real world, a 4GHz Q9400 will outperform a stock i7 920 in most (if not all) games. As far as gaming is concerned, going from a 4GHz C2Q to an i7 is a pointless upgrade - there isn't a single game out there that isn't playable with a 4GHz C2Q.

To the OP, what are you using this computer for?

I doubt there is any scenario where a core2 quad even at 4ghz could outperform a i7 920 even stock. Its not only a better chip its got 3 channel memory and memory controller on die. Its one of the biggest changes intel has ever made.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Its not only a better chip its got 3 channel memory and memory controller on die. Its one of the biggest changes intel has ever made.

You sound like you're just repeating something you read in a review or possibly a marketing document. Do you know what any of this really means? For some applications, such as certain games, the answer is "not much."

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
I doubt there is any scenario where a core2 quad even at 4ghz could outperform a i7 920 even stock.

Read some reviews and look closely at the benchmark numbers. There are plenty of cases where the i7 architecture just doesn't help that much, and core2 isn't far behind. I'll link you to Anandtech's own original i7 review to start you off:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

The 3.2GHz Core2 Quad actually beats even the 3.2GHz i7 in 2 of those benchmarks. At 4GHz, a c2q would demolish a 2.66GHz i7 (for gaming).

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
Wait for the i7. I oc'ed a q9400 to 4.0ghz and my 3dmark vantage cpu score was around 14000. My i7 920 stock 2.66 3dmark vantage cpu score is around 17000.

3dmark scores are pretty meaningless, though. In the real world, a 4GHz Q9400 will outperform a stock i7 920 in most (if not all) games. As far as gaming is concerned, going from a 4GHz C2Q to an i7 is a pointless upgrade - there isn't a single game out there that isn't playable with a 4GHz C2Q.

To the OP, what are you using this computer for?

I doubt there is any scenario where a core2 quad even at 4ghz could outperform a i7 920 even stock. Its not only a better chip its got 3 channel memory and memory controller on die. Its one of the biggest changes intel has ever made.

In games that are still only single or dual threaded an i7 920 sometimes loses to an e8600. Read into the hype all you want, and i7 is a great CPU yes, but it's not THAT good. Any gamer would prefer a 4gHz C2Q over a stock i7. If I had to guess on average, a 4gHz Q9550 would be roughly equal to, say, a 3.4-3.6gHz i7

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: yh125d
In games that are still only single or dual threaded an i7 920 sometimes loses to an e8600. Read into the hype all you want, and i7 is a great CPU yes, but it's not THAT good. Any gamer would prefer a 4gHz C2Q over a stock i7. If I had to guess on average, a 4gHz Q9550 would be roughly equal to, say, a 3.4-3.6gHz i7

I agree with you, this isn't like a jump from the Netburst to Core, this time is good, but not that great, is considerably faster in media encoding, professional rendering etc, like the old days with the Pentium 4, but in games the difference is so hard to point, is a must have for people with Quad Crossfire/SLI though. But Nehalem is based on the Core architecture, hence it's similiarities at the execution engine level. Core architecture front ends went underutilized most of the time, so adding Hyper Threading along with an integrated memory controller and some optimizations for SMT makes a lot of sense.

I sold my QX6850 in ebay for this CPU, and I couldn't be happier, much less power consumption, heat dissipation, better overclocking, better media encoding, better gaming performance, is like a new CPU.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If you are getting 3 ghz out of that Q6600 i think that you can get 3.6 ghz out of the Q9550 easy. You'll get a cpu that runs cooler also.

One more thing, try to sell the Q6600 so you can minimise your spenditure.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I wouldn't bother. Pretty minor upgrade

 

[elconejito]

I went from a Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz to a Q9650 @4Ghz. For most generic stuff like opening firefox, outlook, etc, I see a little difference (I'm not a big gamer). Noticeable to me, but I can probably be convinced it is my imagination. Where I really see a "wow" difference is in media conversion. Something that took an hour and a half now takes just under an hour.

At the time I made the switch i7 mobos and DDR3 were still really pricey, so it was a good move for me at that time. If I were making the jump today, I'd probably go for the i7. But if you aren't doing anything that really takes advantage of what the i7 can do, then I'd just stick it out with the Q6600 (which is still a very solid chip) until the fall and see what Intel has up it's sleeve.

 

[Deadtrees]

That's the same question I had and I have Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz. The answer, in my case, was NO.
At this point, what's the point of Q9550 when i7 is only a bit more expensive and i5 is right around the corner?
If you go for Q9550, you'll want to go for i7 soon or even right away. Even worse, i5 is coming soon.

 

[Wuzup101]

I'd say skip it and wait until the i5's come out. While the q9550 would give you some advantages (bit faster, bit cooler, etc...); I personally wouldn't buy a new one for just over $200 when you have a processor that already performs almost as well (especially as someone who is complaining about the cost of an i7 system - not that I'm not).

The fact is, there isn't much that a q6600 based machine can't do well... wait until you can get a bigger upgrade from your cash...

 

[Bryf50]

Originally posted by: Wuzup101
I'd say skip it and wait until the i5's come out. While the q9550 would give you some advantages (bit faster, bit cooler, etc...); I personally wouldn't buy a new one for just over $200 when you have a processor that already performs almost as well (especially as someone who is complaining about the cost of an i7 system - not that I'm not).

The fact is, there isn't much that a q6600 based machine can't do well... wait until you can get a bigger upgrade from your cash...

Although the prices of the i7s are a bit high for my tastes, you can't forget that a q9550 is a drop in upgrade. The i7 would require a new mobo and ram which puts the price of the upgrade far from what im willing to spend all at once. This is why I hate new platforms.

Yea it looks like I?m gonna hold off on upgrading until I can move to something more substantial. I wish I could just get a little more out of my q6600 but any further attempts at ocing have failed pretty miserably.

 

[lopri]

Well we're comparing a drop-in replacement vs. a brand new build. I don't think Q6600 to Q9550 is a bad upgrade, especially if the OP can sell the Q6600 to cover some of the damage. If he needs a new board as well, then it's probably not worth the hassle, though.

 

[Gikaseixas]

a new mobo, new cpu, new DDR3 ram will cost you much more than just a Q9550

for now you can have a bump in performance by doing this. Sell the Q6600 and you will end up spending maybe just $100 total which is not bad for 600-1000 mhz, lower temps, etc

 

[abs0lut3]

Originally posted by: Bryf50

Originally posted by: Wuzup101
I'd say skip it and wait until the i5's come out. While the q9550 would give you some advantages (bit faster, bit cooler, etc...); I personally wouldn't buy a new one for just over $200 when you have a processor that already performs almost as well (especially as someone who is complaining about the cost of an i7 system - not that I'm not).

The fact is, there isn't much that a q6600 based machine can't do well... wait until you can get a bigger upgrade from your cash...

Although the prices of the i7s are a bit high for my tastes, you can't forget that a q9550 is a drop in upgrade. The i7 would require a new mobo and ram which puts the price of the upgrade far from what im willing to spend all at once. This is why I hate new platforms.

Yea it looks like I?m gonna hold off on upgrading until I can move to something more substantial. I wish I could just get a little more out of my q6600 but any further attempts at ocing have failed pretty miserably.

Oops, let me edit that statement:

ewiz sells an OEM and Retail box of the 9550 for less than what others sells. You might want to reconsider your options

I was thinking about it (swapping my e8400) but I think I'm ready for the Core i5s.

 

[evolucion8]

the Q9550S is a little too expensive, considering that the i7 920 is cheaper and faster. Better off with the regular Q9550. If you want to jump to the i# platform, better jump with the i7 which supports tri-channel memory, once the i5 debuts which only supports Dual Channel and no Hyper Threading in some models, the i7 will get much more expensive.

If the Core i7 is only between 20% and 50% faster average than a similar Quad Core CPU, without Hyper Threading like some models of the Core i5, the performance difference will be much less noticeable, but since you got a Dual Core CPU, that's not a problem.

 

[taltamir]

about a month or two ago i sold my Q6600 on ebay for 160$ and bought a Q9400 for 165$; power savings will make it pay for the upgrade. A 9550 is not a BIG upgrade, in fact it is quite a minor upgrade... I would say it REALLY depends on the price you are getting.
Don't expect it to be much faster though.
Intel does tick-tock cycles. the shrinking just means cheaper and lower power consumption, not faster. the redesign phase is where the speed gains are made (ex: i7)

On the 24th intels new 34nm SSDs hit the market, faster than the current X25 models, for less money.
Honestly, I wouldn't even consider upgrading the CPU from what you have before grabbing an intel SSD. (extremely cheap side grades are ok though)

And for CPU upgrade I would wait for the P55 mobos.

As an OVERCLOCKER I don't think you should even consider the i5. Only the i7 and i3... why?

well here are the differences:

Originally Posted By: taltamir
an i7 for a desktop is defined as a quad core with hyperthreading (8 threads).
an i5 is either a quad core with no HT (4 threads) or a dual core with HT (4 threads)
an i3 is like an i5, only with turbo mode disabled.
Laptop definitions are different than desktop definitions.

The P55 will have an i7, which actually has some advantages (along with some disadvantages) over the X58 i7. it is a slightly different design but it should compete well. and be less expensive.

the differences between P55 i7 and X58 i7:
1. memory channel: X58 is triple channel DDR3. P55 is dual.
2. P55 will have a single full speed video card connection, or two half speed connections. X58 has two full speed connections. So if you run SLI/xfire X58 is better
3. P55 has the pciE video connection integrated into the CPU, improving latency. As long as you only use one slot (so you get full speed connection) than the P55 will actually be FASTER than the X58.
4. turbo mode: there are unconfirmed reports of P55 having greater turbo mode boosting.

While triple memory channel is good for a high IO fileserver, it makes no difference in GAMES and regular programs.
So for a gamer: 1 makes no difference. 2&3 mean X58 is better for multiple cards, P55 is BETTER for single card. and 4, if true, means that P55 is much better for video games.

As you can see, with i5 you give up on hyperthreading (or two cores). With i3 you give up on turbo mode, except you are an overclocker, so you turbo mode is redundant.