Q9550 or E8500/E8600 which one to get

[Mars999]

I am in the market to build a new system, I think I read somewhere the Q9550 is coming down in price to $315 soon? And the E8600 is coming out also. So which one to get Q9550, E8600, E8500? I don't know if performance difference between the 3.16Ghz vs. 2.83Ghz is really much to talk about? I do gaming and programming. So I am thinking the Q9550 might be a better solution, as more games in the next year or so will support quads and Dx11 will be made to use multi core better also. Or should I wait for Nehalem, but what will the cost be for a new MB, DDR3 ram and CPU? Does the DDR3 need to be 1600mhz? Any ideas on what to do?

 

[hans007]

i think if you were going to buy anything, i'd get the quad if you plan to use the computer for a long time and if you do gaming with the newer games.

why bother waiting for the Q9550. you could get a Q9450 now for $280 or so. i dont think the 160 mhz difference in clock speed is really worth waiting. or you can wait till the q9550 and get a q9450 then...

as I think the lowest quad usually is the best bang for the buck.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

The 9450 will oc just as good as the 9550 and is cheaper. Its like the 8400 vs 8500 debate. The catch is if you buy DDR3. Being that the 9450 has a low multi of 8, getting it to 3.6Ghz will require 450fsb or 900Mhz 1:1 or 1800Mhz 1:2 You can clock down the DDR3 to 900Mhz but it sorta of defeats the 2% increase margin, which isn't noticeable except for memory intensive things like opening rar files etc. On the other hand, you have a 8.5 multi on the 9550 which isn't that much better but will release tension on your mobo and requirements for fast DDR3 but DDR3 1600 is the sweet spot; as long as the multi is good.

 

[Mars999]

SO with say a Nehalem system I am looking at spending close to $750 more for a similar 2.66Ghz quad core system, with the same amount of RAM and new MB? Maybe I should pocket that extra cash, and get a cheap 45nm system now like a E8600 in Aug, use that for 2-3years and step up to the latest 32nm tech or 22nm at that time?

 

[DSF]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The 9450 will oc just as good as the 9550 and is cheaper. Its like the 8400 vs 8500 debate. The catch is if you buy DDR3. Being that the 9450 has a low multi of 8, getting it to 3.6Ghz will require 450fsb or 900Mhz 1:1 or 1800Mhz 1:2 You can clock down the DDR3 to 900Mhz but it sorta of defeats the 2% increase margin, which isn't noticeable except for memory intensive things like opening rar files etc. On the other hand, you have a 8.5 multi on the 9550 which isn't that much better but will release tension on your mobo and requirements for fast DDR3 but DDR3 1600 is the sweet spot; as long as the multi is good.

Or you could just use DDR2-1000 and avoid all the fuss.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The 9450 will oc just as good as the 9550 and is cheaper. Its like the 8400 vs 8500 debate. The catch is if you buy DDR3. Being that the 9450 has a low multi of 8, getting it to 3.6Ghz will require 450fsb or 900Mhz 1:1 or 1800Mhz 1:2 You can clock down the DDR3 to 900Mhz but it sorta of defeats the 2% increase margin, which isn't noticeable except for memory intensive things like opening rar files etc. On the other hand, you have a 8.5 multi on the 9550 which isn't that much better but will release tension on your mobo and requirements for fast DDR3 but DDR3 1600 is the sweet spot; as long as the multi is good.

The Q9550 will have an extra .5 multiplier, allowing to reach 3.6 much easier and possibly up to 4.0ghz... it's certainly worth the wait. I'm not sure why you don't think the .5 multiplier is unimportant, all these quads can easily make it to 4.0 and higher if they weren't FSB and multiplier restricted so much as they are. Look at the QX's, they're reaching 4.2 and up!

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: Shortass

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
The 9450 will oc just as good as the 9550 and is cheaper. Its like the 8400 vs 8500 debate. The catch is if you buy DDR3. Being that the 9450 has a low multi of 8, getting it to 3.6Ghz will require 450fsb or 900Mhz 1:1 or 1800Mhz 1:2 You can clock down the DDR3 to 900Mhz but it sorta of defeats the 2% increase margin, which isn't noticeable except for memory intensive things like opening rar files etc. On the other hand, you have a 8.5 multi on the 9550 which isn't that much better but will release tension on your mobo and requirements for fast DDR3 but DDR3 1600 is the sweet spot; as long as the multi is good.

The Q9550 will have an extra .5 multiplier, allowing to reach 3.6 much easier and possibly up to 4.0ghz... it's certainly worth the wait. I'm not sure why you don't think the .5 multiplier is unimportant, all these quads can easily make it to 4.0 and higher if they weren't FSB and multiplier restricted so much as they are. Look at the QX's, they're reaching 4.2 and up!

I second the Q9550 as a better potentially OC'er, there will be less strain on the MB to reach the same clock speed on both

One may ultimately reach a higher speed than the other (no one ever knows for sure) but the Q9550 will have an easier time getting there.

 

[GundamF91]

It'll be .5 multiplier, which nets you about extra 200-225mhz when you're talking about 400-450mhz FSB speed. One thing to keep in mind is that these Quad are not as good as Dual in terms of overclocking, which is to be expected since the board has to deal with a pair of dual cores. So even if you can push it up to 4Ghz territory, your temperature are probably too hot to handle for long term use.

 

[bharatwaja]

If u can wait for the q9550 price drop, then by all means, that's the best way to go.... The extra .5 multi will give u a significant boost while OCing....
However the q9450 is also a gr8 overclocker... so its generally about how much longer you can wait.... although for your needs the E8500 will do good, jus programming and some gaming like me i guess.... if u can afford the q9450 or the q9550 (later on), there is no point in going with the e8400... having 2 extra cores wouldn't hurt IMHO....

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
It'll be .5 multiplier, which nets you about extra 200-225mhz when you're talking about 400-450mhz FSB speed. One thing to keep in mind is that these Quad are not as good as Dual in terms of overclocking, which is to be expected since the board has to deal with a pair of dual cores. So even if you can push it up to 4Ghz territory, your temperature are probably too hot to handle for long term use.

In reality, even if you get an e8400/e8500 to 4ghz, you have yourself 8ghz (2 x 4ghz) of available processing power available

A Q9450/Q9550 to 3ghz will give you 12ghz (4 x 3ghz) of available processing power

While not many apps will use all 4 cores, XP/Vista does load balance apps across all 4 processors so you will get a performance advantage

You can bet that developers are working on apps that can use 4 cores, what will one do if 2-3 months from now out pops a whole batch of 4 core optimized apps, Upgrade that e8400 ??

The .5 multi may seem to not add much but just a simple rise in FSB to 400 will result in a total available processing power increase of 800 mhz (200mhz x 4) when comparing a q9450 to q9550 OC

When apps come out that utilize all 4 core you WILL see an 800Mhz difference

 

[noriseghir]

Quad cores cpus are not always speedier than dual cores (even in optimized apps :look here)

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: noriseghir
Quad cores cpus are not always speedier than dual cores (even in optimized apps :look here)

Well, there are dual-optimized and multi-core optimized In multi-core, a quad will always win over a duo. I can't get that page to come up to see what they are talking about.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: hans007
i think if you were going to buy anything, i'd get the quad if you plan to use the computer for a long time and if you do gaming with the newer games.

why bother waiting for the Q9550. you could get a Q9450 now for $280 or so. i dont think the 160 mhz difference in clock speed is really worth waiting. or you can wait till the q9550 and get a q9450 then...

as I think the lowest quad usually is the best bang for the buck.

The 160mhz is x 4 cores, on apps that utilize all 4 cores so at stock clock speeds the Q9550 is 600mhz faster

As you OC the 160mhz difference will increase

A mild OC of a Q9450 vs Q9550 to a very attainable 375fsb increases the difference to 750mhz

If the qoal of the Quad is to run quad optomized apps in the coming years then the Q9550 is the way to go, a wise $35 investment

 

[pvrbulls]

There is an error in the link provided by noriseghir.

I think it should be http://www.digit-life.com/arti...lon-64-x2-6400-p1.html

 

[BubbaBooBoo]

Correct me if Im wrong, but isn't the Q9450 discontiuned as soon as the Q9400 comes out (maybe as early as two weeks from now)?

 

[pvrbulls]

I could be wrong but, as I understand it.... it's the introduction of the Q9650 in the next few days/weeks at $530 that will displace the Q9550(currently at that price point) which will then be priced(the Q9550) at $316(which is the price point presently held by the Q9450) which will mean the end of the Q9450 as far as Intel's official price schedule is concerned.........if that makes any sense.

 

[GundamF91]

If you can wait until the end of the year when Nehalem launches, you should wait to get the Q9650. I have no doubt that it'll drop to replace Q9550 with 1Q09 pricing.

 

[aigomorla]

the Q9650 is an absolute monster.

seriously. 9x multi FTW!

X3370 -> Q9650 xeon side lga 775
X3360 -> Q9550 Xeon side lga 775.
X3350 -> Q9450

you should also consider xeons. As there the same chips, but sometimes offer better availability.

hopefully today or tommorrow i'll finish my Q9650 collection.

from QX -> Xeon

 

[BubbaBooBoo]

That E8600 with the 10x multiplier sounds awfuly tasty. What would be an OC for it that would in no way compremise stability and reliability? Even if I could get 3.7 GHz on a good air coler Id be very happy. On single threaded aps it should smoke a quad running at under 3 GHz, right?