Q6600 vs Q9550 OC'd

[Stickmansam]

Getting either a $65 Q6600 G0 or a $100 Q9550 E0.

The motherboard I have is a P5ke-wifiap and only 800mhz ram

I have the Glacial Tech 5610 Silent
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2203&page=3

Which one will give me better performance for gaming if I plan to overclock both? I don't know which one would be better off for the price and I am worried about ram stability if i go over 1600FSB. Temps are also a issue as my heatsink isn't one of the best.
I'll be pairing it with a 7850 and a 1080p monitor

Thanks

 

[inf64]

35$ difference is totally worth it in case of Q9550. All around better chip.

 

[SPBHM]

35$ difference is totally worth it in case of Q9550. All around better chip.

$35? yes,

54% more, I'm not sure!

oh, wait! :biggrin:

9550 is a bit faster on the same clock, uses less power, overclocks more...
since you are using a fast and new VGA, I think you should get the q9550.

but keep in mind $100 can buy you some newer and probably faster CPUs,

 

[Cerb]

The Q9550 will top our at 3.4GHz, before you'll need to OC the RAM.
The Q6600 will top out at 3.6GHz, before you'll need to OC the RAM.

OTOH, whether the Q6600 could make it past ~3.4GHz without significant over-volting is a real question. OTOH, the Q9550 would be almost certain to reach 3.4GHz at <=stock Vcore, would run cooler, can be ever-so-slightly faster at the same speed. You will probably be able to plug the Q9550 in, adjust the RAM multiplier and FSB, do a little stress testing, and then be able to go about using it at 3.4+GHz (your RAM will likely be the limiting factor, up to around 4GHz, given that you are using a fairly good HSF).

If you're coming from an older dual-core, and have everything but the chip already, it will totally be worth it.

 

[SPBHM]

q6600 without overvolt at 3GHz is common, but anything over that normally require a lot of overvolt, 3.6GHz is pretty high for the q6600, cooling might be a problem, also, the q9550 at 3.4GHz is probably faster for gaming, using a lot less power... I've seen q9550 with a decent undervolt at 3.4GHz

 

[know of fence]

At those prices you should be selling not buying. People spend so much time scouring ebay that they are prepared to pay almost anything. For current gen the entry price is around 250 (memory and a bigger heat sink included).

 

[richierich1212]

I'd rather have you sell your current setup and buy an i3-3220 + cheap H77 mobo like this instead. Also comes with free 8GB DDR3 1600. Why upgrade into an obsolete platform?

 

[sm625]

You're talking close to $50 year in extra electricity costs to run that platform overclocked vs something like a pentium G2120. And it still wouldnt be nearly as fast.

 

[Cerb]

You're talking close to $50 year in extra electricity costs to run that platform overclocked vs something like a pentium G2120. And it still wouldnt be nearly as fast.

A G2120 uses no power? Electricity costs vary and all, but $50 should be about what the C2D should take, unless the OP lives somewhere where it's ~$0.25/kWh or more, or if the OP plans to have it folding all day. It's only 20% more over stock, unless the OP were to get really unlucky, and the video card is at least as hungry as the CPU.

Also, why wouldn't it be nearly as fast? It would be faster than a G850, which is the highest AT's bench has, and with SB->IB and 200MHz, the G2120 shouldn't more than about 10-15% faster than that. The C2D would not be as fast as, or faster than, an i3, definitely, but I think you're greatly overestimating the Pentium series.

If the OP didn't have everything but the CPU, it would be silly not to get an IB-based system. And, if the OP wants to wheel and deal a little, selling parts to move up to an i3 would be a fair upgrade. But a Pentium would be a side-grade, unless electricity is very costly.

 

[SPBHM]

undervolted q9550 is quite good in terms of power usage, doesn't look a lot worse than sandy bridge (performance per watt is)
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article954-page5.html

80w less than a PII X4 955, and performance is not a lot different...
UV+small OC shouldn't be a big problem for power usage,

 

[pauldun170]

$100 for a dead platform (skip the q6600, Q9550 E0 is still a great chip. Nicer performer than my i3-2100 in general usage and in games)
OR
Sell your stuff and invest in an entry level system on a platform that will be obsolete in less than a year. (and replaced by Haswell...a processor that is supposed to auto-enpregnate Sports Illustrated Models, extend penis sizes and instantly add 6 inches to your height)

Having both the Q9550 and an i3-2100 I find the Q9550 a better performer in games and everyday usage HOWEVER I can only speak for the apps\games I use on a daily basis. Perhaps in games the i3 will post higher FPS but I find the Q9550 to be smoother.
My Q9550 has a mild overclock @ 3.4 and has a lot more head room but I have it undervolted (1.16) and hooked up to a Cooler Master 212. Idles about 29c and peak temps never exceeds 45c in an Antec 300 case with stock Antec 140mm fan on low setting and a Scythe 120mm fan spinning at 600rpm.

It's been awhile since I did a apples to apples (same vid card, fresh win install, same games) comparison between my Q9550 and i3-2100 and selective memory might be setting in but I do still use it regularly.

 

[Cerb]

An i3-2100 has 2 cores w/ 2-way SMT on each, and a shared 3MB cache, whereas the Q9550 has 4 whole cores, and each set of 2 share 6MB (it's not necessarily as good as 12MB shared would be). The cache is where it really falters, as background tasks could easily eat into cache your game could otherwise be using.

The i3's IMC, and effective HT, make it quite nice for many games, and would likely be worth going to for a long-running system (SB and newer are likely already typical optimization targets for upcoming games). But, the later 6MB/die Core 2 CPUs are still quite good at holding their own, until you get into the i5 line and up--especially if you overclock them, as Intel was fairly conservative with their speeds. The i3 is commonly somewhat faster, but it takes the real quad to make for a, "wow," kind of difference.

If it were between a Q9550 and i3-3220, I'd get the i3, though. It'll be substantially faster most of the time, with 1-2 threads using most of the CPU time, and most programs not having a really big cache footprint, and even on the occasion the Q9550 would be better, it won't be by much. However, that either increases the budget, or necessitates trading, v. just getting a CPU.

 

[pauldun170]

So...

OP asks...
A. for 65
B. for 100

Forum responds with
C. for 200-300

More I think about it, the less I like the idea of spending money to toss an obsolete chip on a 5 year old mobo.

What does OP have now?

 

[NTMBK]

Go for the Q9550, I'd say. Should give you a system that performs plenty good enough.

More I think about it, the less I like the idea of spending money to toss an obsolete chip on a 5 year old mobo.

What does OP have now?

It's a $100 upgrade that makes a PC plenty good enough, good enough to last several more years frankly. (I did much the same when I put this Phenom II into an old AM2 motherboard.) It's a good move, and better than replacing entire mobo and CPU and RAM.

 

[Stickmansam]

I have all the parts except the cpu already so it was either 65/100 or a 130 ish core i3 (live in canada, i3's NEVER drop below 110 and i5's never below 210) with new board and ram. I was also worried that Haswell would drop the 1155 meaning it would be a dead socket soon too (meaning i max out at i5). Thanks for all the input, I'm going to get the q9550 and upgrade when Skylake comes along.

I am running along with a e3300 OC to 3ghz.:|

 

[aaksheytalwar]

It is a bit faster and may of more. But even a core i3 second gen will beat it. Even a first gen core i3 will come close.

 

[pauldun170]

It is a bit faster and may of more. But even a core i3 second gen will beat it. Even a first gen core i3 will come close.

Stock for Stock
A Q9550 vs first gen i3.
Nope. Q9550 isn't far off from i7-920 in real world usage.

A Q9550 vs Sandy\Ivy i3.
Stock for Stock...they trade blows but overall experience seems smoother with Q9550. Its when you start getting into specific use cases that i3 pulls ahead. It then becomes a matter of how much are you willing to spend to take advantage of the i3 architecture for those specific use cases.

If you just want to play battlefield on a budget.
Overclocked Q9550 for $100 would be a wiser choice than a re-platform to an entry level setup on thats going to be sunset next year.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=47
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=677
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=289
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/50?vs=143


Once you start overclocking the q9550 i think you really need to look at what you want to do with your pc before you choose between the i3 and the q9550.

 

[Stickmansam]

Yeah I wanted a quad because it'll probably be more future proof than a i3 and if i went a i3, when i swap out my i3 , i'll need a board and a ram for them to make it my family rig or get new board and ram for the new build and end out getting too many boards. I'm not really that into reselling things.
The choice really was between q9550 vs q6600

Thanks again for all the input =)

 

[Kalessian]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, looking to replace a e5200 with a yorkfield so I can play full screen flash video on my HTPC without stutters. I'm waiting for the yorkfield prices to come down a bit more, I don't think you should bother with any 65nm stuff. I think $80 or so to just drop in a CPU and not have to bother doing anything else is worth saving me time and money requried to make a whole new PC.

 

[SPBHM]

for gaming, even the most basic SB i3 (2100) seems to outperform the qx9770 (9550 with OC to 3.2GHz)
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-13/anno-1404.html

but the thing is, I've seen many q9550 at much higher clock, while the i3 is locked.
and on MT tasks the core 2 quad can be much faster in some cases.... so for $100, if he already have the other parts, it can be a decent choice I think...

65nm C2Qs are more problematic, harder to overclock, and generate to much heat/power usage, and IPC is slightly lower... but if you have a MB with decent VRM, cooling, don't care about power usage and find one for a low price, it's also OK.

 

[Stickmansam]

Haha i think i'll need the extra cores, running 40-100 tabs in chrome while gaming is usual for me on my Phenom N930 quad laptop. I just hope that as games advance the choice to go quad will pay off as more games will want more cores rather than 2 fast cores.

 

[2is]

You're talking close to $50 year in extra electricity costs to run that platform overclocked vs something like a pentium G2120. And it still wouldnt be nearly as fast.

Stock vs Stock, it would be faster in tasks that use one or two cores max. But the Q can be overclocked, which I bet would put it on par in said tasks, and well ahead in anything that can use 3+ cores.

 

[pauldun170]

for gaming, even the most basic SB i3 (2100) seems to outperform the qx9770 (9550 with OC to 3.2GHz)
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-13/anno-1404.html

but the thing is, I've seen many q9550 at much higher clock, while the i3 is locked.
and on MT tasks the core 2 quad can be much faster in some cases.... so for $100, if he already have the other parts, it can be a decent choice I think...

65nm C2Qs are more problematic, harder to overclock, and generate to much heat/power usage, and IPC is slightly lower... but if you have a MB with decent VRM, cooling, don't care about power usage and find one for a low price, it's also OK.

Having both the i3-2100, the q9550 e0 and actively using both on a regular basis I'd rather have the Q9550 if I had to pick one.

 

[KingRaptor]

i3-SB is a nice chip and all, but there is no point in more money on it and a new platform that will go in a few months. The i3 doesn't have turbo boost so no overclocking for it at all. It would be the least cost effective choice. No OC, dying platform, more expensive.

 

[Stickmansam]

i3-SB is a nice chip and all, but there is no point in more money on it and a new platform that will go in a few months. The i3 doesn't have turbo boost so no overclocking for it at all. It would be the least cost effective choice. No OC, dying platform, more expensive.

If there had been an i3k version I probably would have jumped on that and OC it all the way, a friend has a 2500k and he can reach 4.5 on stock cooler and stock volts completely stable