upgrade to q9550

Xarick

Golden Member
May 17, 2006
1,199
1
76
I have a p5qse with a e6400 @2.8ghz
I really want to update my processor. I was thinking of putting in a e8500 or q9550.
But then I started looking at the phenom II 945 which can be had for $170. That in a combo with a mobo can run about $220.. same price as a q9550.

What do you guys recommend?
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,250
136
I'd vote for the Q9550 and OC it also....If you live by a Microcenter it'd be even cheaper :)

Don't forget the countless hours of installing windows and all apps again....Maybe a moot point with Windows 7 so close anyways.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Q9550. I have PhII @ 3.5ghz and wish I had gotten one of those, or even a Q6600 or Q6700. Of course, I have the 805 model, perhaps the 9xx PhII's are a bit better clock for clock.
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,275
46
91
Save yourself the trouble of swapping motherboards and just get the Q9550.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Q9550. I have PhII @ 3.5ghz and wish I had gotten one of those, or even a Q6600 or Q6700. Of course, I have the 805 model, perhaps the 9xx PhII's are a bit better clock for clock.

Uh, the 900 is better clock for clock than the 800 series, hence the higher model number. I get extremely tired of you using the same unsubstantiated statements over and over again, Arkaign. You have not told the OP why you "wish" to have one of those, and why is the most important piece of information to the user. You even failed to grasp the concept the Phenom 805 is the budget quad core, coming with less L3 cache than the other models. Of course it's going to perform worse than competing products, but of course you provide no relevance as to what performance metric (candle) you're holding your chip up to.

Empty statements piss me off to no end.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
PhII 805 is not the budget Quad, that's the Athlon X4 and Q8000 series. I also have the extra 2MB L3 cache unlocked. I think the overwhelming consensus on the PhII has been that it's a great processor, particularly for gaming, but it's still a little slower clock for clock than the Q9000 (and in many cases, the Q6000) series. You need to chill out, I'm not saying the PhII is terrible, it's just not preferable for someone with such an easy upgrade to Q9000.

Starting with a blank slate, I might well recommend a PhII over any Socket 775 solution as it looks like 6-core is coming to AM3 :) Also the limited PCI-E on the Socket 1156 platform (2 x 8x IIRC?) makes me second-guess that choice for a high-end multi-gpu solution as well.

Why I personally wish I had gone with a Q9000 such as the Q9550, well the benchmarks tell the story. If you overclock one into the 3.5+ghz range, it's simply going to be faster for everything that isn't GPU limited. 12MB of cache is a pretty nice thing to have. This 805 I purchased was an impulse move, I have historically supported AMD and wanted to give them another shot after running various C2D setups for a while. It was $250 bundled with a Gigabyte GA790X AM2+ board, and it's been a decent experience and a fair value. I also acknowledge that prices on C2Q are a bit skewed, not everyone can find one at a really good price, not everyone is in striking distance of a Micro Center.

The benches in question :

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=13

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=14

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=15

etc, etc, etc ... the PhII clock for clock just isn't as fast for almost all apps compared to C2Q 9k. Gaming I don't rate as much, even though the AT benches still show an advantage for the C2Q. Pretty much any modern CPU is still going to be limited to your GPU using common-sense settings.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
PhII 805 is not the budget Quad, that's the Athlon X4 and Q8000 series.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...810-720-710-am3-cpus/1
There are five new AM3 CPUs - three quad-core, and two triple-core and, in conjunction with this, AMD has expanded its three number naming scheme and breaking it down we can decipher how to read it:
900-series - quad-core, 6MB L3 cache
800-series - quad-core - 4MB L3 cache
700-series - triple-core - 6MB L3 cache

And secondary numbers:
x40 - 3.0GHz
x20 - 2.8GHz
x10 - 2.6GHz
x05 - 2.5GHz
You bought AMD's version of the Q8200 ;)
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: Arkaign
PhII 805 is not the budget Quad, that's the Athlon X4 and Q8000 series.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...810-720-710-am3-cpus/1
There are five new AM3 CPUs - three quad-core, and two triple-core and, in conjunction with this, AMD has expanded its three number naming scheme and breaking it down we can decipher how to read it:
900-series - quad-core, 6MB L3 cache
800-series - quad-core - 4MB L3 cache
700-series - triple-core - 6MB L3 cache

And secondary numbers:
x40 - 3.0GHz
x20 - 2.8GHz
x10 - 2.6GHz
x05 - 2.5GHz
You bought AMD's version of the Q8200 ;)

Actually I think that would be the Propus, as it has the severely reduced cache in comparison to the Phenom IIs.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8936.html

All PhII X4 have 2MB L2, only the L3 is different. So total L2+L3 cache :

800 series = 6MB
900 series = 8MB

Not a terribly dramatic difference.

Compare to Intel C2Q series :

Q8000 = 4MB L2, no virtualization
Q9000 = 12MB L2, virtualization

So q8000 has only 1/3 the cache of q9000 and is missing features. The PhII 800 series is only missing 25% of the cache and is not missing features.

Propus / Athlon X4 is the approximate equivalent of the Q8000 budget quads. PhII 800 is so close to PhII 900 that the difference is pretty minor. Best thing I can say about 900 series is unlocked multi! Woot! Wish more Intels had that outside of expensive editions.

 

Comdrpopnfresh

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2006
1,202
2
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
...I might well recommend a PhII over any Socket 775 solution as it looks like 6-core is coming to AM3 :) Also the limited PCI-E on the Socket 1156 platform (2 x 8x IIRC?) makes me second-guess that choice for a high-end multi-gpu solution as well.

6 cores- so? That processor is just a stopgap until AMD's next architecture. It'll probably have lower clocks compared to current quads from AMD. Considering current and foreseeable mainstream software inflicts diminishing returns for every core you add to a processor, the lower clocks don't offer anything in exchange except for wasted electricity, heat, and a hefty burden of having to justify getting it. AMD's current architecture is inefficient- 6 cores would mean taking on some performance hits from their cache structure more aligned with server environments, and would really stretch the architecture (the memory controller will likely be slower to reduce heat, and the addition of more power plans seems tough). It's novel, but really only offers value and the promise of a socket that'll hang around.

To the op- what are your uses? Do you plan on overclocking?
Considering you didn't drop any uses, like editing video or photos or hardcore gaming... I'm guessing you're getting itchy for an upgrade. If there is no specific purpose beside overall better performance, I'd suggest utilizing your current motherboard, and getting an E8400. Hang out for the occasional sale. You could probably get one new for ~$135. I personally won't consider a quad core cpu until I get windows 7 on my machine. Even then, I really don't have a regular use that creates a need for two more cores.

Arkaign- IMO: I don't think it's sensible to weigh in the 2x 8x pci-e on s1156. It's brand new- someone isn't thinking all to clearly if they're going to spend on a brand new system, only to then dump money on a dual-card configuration shortly after. Unless someone is gaming on a multi-monitor, or huge resolution display, there are no games out there that require a dual card setup. If someone is going to spend a lot of money on a system, I'd suspect they would go with x58 to begin with. On paper, you're absolutely right, but I don't see it playing out except for on a test bench.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Interesting post, Comd.

The reason I brought up the AMD 6-core is that it reflects future options for the AM2+/AM3 platform, whereas Intel has decidedly moved away from 775 for future CPU releases. Perhaps 6-core won't mean much, but you never know. Once the coding really starts to get going for multi-core, I can't see writing code to support 6 cores to be any more complex than it is to write for quad core. Aren't we also looking at a process shrink for AMD at some point?

As far as the 2x 8x PCI-e, it's true that it will only affect a fraction of customers, and it shouldn't be a sticking point outside of the rarefied few who run multi-gpu. Those folks are probably buying i7 900 series anyway, as you said.

I went from an overclocked E5200 to this PhII, and it really doesn't give me anything noticeable other than faster encoding for my purposes so far. None of my games seem to care that I have the extra cores at this time, but I've heard that certain titles are already using the extra cores, such as GTA4 and SupCom. If the jump to Quad support is half as fast as the support jumped from single to dual, then within a year we should start seeing a lot more robust support for quads and above.

So much of this is hypothetical and/or dependent upon stuff that we just have no clue how is going to actually play out though. Best thing I can say is that either a decent PhII or a decent Q9000 system will be a pretty damned good gaming platform for a while yet. Hard to go wrong with these two choices, unlike when the Athlon X2 / Opteron was hands-down better than Pentium D, or when the tables turned and the C2D dominated the crap out of Athlon X2.
 

Comdrpopnfresh

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2006
1,202
2
81
I stick my assertion of the E8400. It's enough of a performance difference, and inexpensive enough to not kick yourself in 3-6 months. I'd put the money on a graphics card- if that needs updating. The 160mhz difference between the E8400 and E8500 means nothing. I think they're the same stepping, so you'd likely top out at roughly the same speed if you plan on overclocking to the brink. Unless, of course, ASUS's tomfoolery makes doing what you want with you computer a PIA, as it does for me.
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
8,216
3,130
146
q9550 oc sounds good to me.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
You already have the P45 board, then just sell the E8400 and get a Q9550 and OC that thing :). I am sure you can sell your processor for $80, so the upgrade cost won't be that much. However, what graphics card do you have?
 

Xarick

Golden Member
May 17, 2006
1,199
1
76
8800gts 320
I don't have an 8400 I have an e6400
I will be upgrading the video, but it could be a few months before the 5850s are readily available.
 

Xarick

Golden Member
May 17, 2006
1,199
1
76
Man I am really torn guys.. $161 for an e8400 then OC or q9550.. or neither and just upgrade the video.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
get the xfx 4870 at newegg for $124 ar and you will think you got a new pc... make sure you have enough memory to not be paging in games, too... you can wait on the cpu...
 

Xarick

Golden Member
May 17, 2006
1,199
1
76
if I am gonna upgrade my video I will be puttin in a 5850 so that I wont have to upgrade it for several years.
 

Comdrpopnfresh

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2006
1,202
2
81
I'd say wait until the 5850's are readily available- and get a stock OC'd version (1gb gddr5, maybe?) w/ a non-ref cooler. Yeh, you could overclock yourself, but sometimes they specially pick the most responsive chips- so u get a leg up, and a bit more headroom too- plus u don't need fuzzed software running in BG keeping clock setting going while preventing a house fire. The non-ref, stock, cooler is to not go deaf while keeping it cool- and to cover your ass (no getting a 3rd party cooler + losing warranty coverage).

Don't do anything until then, except get real familiar with the in's and out's of your system, if you're not already; such as overclocking. You said you'll likely be adding win7 in Oct, from what I've read the 5850 won't be at the stage I suggested as your purchase pt until mid-end Oct. So plan to update the graphics when you get the new OS. Waiting until that time won't make the core2 lineup dry up, get scarce, and go up in price... it will only get cheaper within the month. Come back, and ask again when you're about ready to get win7 and the 5850. The core2, i5, and i7 prices should all be more enticing by then- so you'll end up ahead compared to if you buy now- just suspend ur credit card in a block of ice, and tac ur goals to the ice! haha.
For gaming, you'd likely do better getting a higher clocked dual core than a quad (in the core2 realm). Until prices come into focus on how intel's three socket platforms are going to price out by year's end, I'd say getting an i5 or i7 is a lot of buck for not much bang- unless you pick up an addiction to folding, digital content creation, or start going manic on multitasking.
See if you can get the E6400 OC'd to ~3.3-3.5ghz. Seems doable on 1.4V [someone check me on this: this is safe for the 65nm core2s, right?] from a quick google of 'E6400 typical OC.' But don't go frying the thing and force your own hand. What hsf do you have on the cpu? Might want to ask around and find out what a good hsf is that can readily fit all thre intel sockets- u could get it now, and use it no matter what you decide to do. If you're sure the E6400 won't be in your system come November, maybe even consider lapping it if you have the time + patience.
 

Xarick

Golden Member
May 17, 2006
1,199
1
76
I have a p5q se and havent been able to get the e6400 past 2.8. I just put in a new PS and just tried it.. I can go higher, but will need better cooling.

It is amazing how much diff a good powersupply makes. I would need a much better cooling solution, but I can push this to 3.2ghz with my voltages at 1.35. Not bad.
 

Bill Brasky

Diamond Member
May 18, 2006
4,324
1
0
Originally posted by: Xarick
Man I am really torn guys.. $161 for an e8400 then OC or q9550.. or neither and just upgrade the video.

I would drop in the quad and get the 5850. I don't recommend buying another dual core at this point.

Basically, what BlahBlahYouToo said.