Q9450 or Q9550?

[curtisbouvier]

Is a 0.5 on the multiplier going to make a difference?

I plan on running the FSB at 400 instead of 333

Games benefit more from a higher front side bus than a multiplier right?

I remember back in the day when I used to overclock the multiplier only on my old Thunderbird, some tests in 3dmark scored huge, but when the FSB was overclocked, OTHER tests scored way better.

can I get a summary of more understanding?

thanks!

 

[curtisbouvier]

let me clarify a bit.

lets say you have 2 processors running at 3GHZ

CPU1 = 400x7.5

CPU2 = 333x9.0

would games run faster on CPU1?

from what I've personally seen in the past, it seems some tasks benefit from a higher multiplier and others from the higher FSB.

maybe some one has done some tests with this?

 

[harpoon84]

FSB speed has very little bearing on overall performance with C2Ds. At the same clock, you'll be looking at an average ~2% improvement between 333FSB and 400FSB, with up to ~10% gains in outlier tests.

The extra .5x multi is useful when pushing for a higher overclock though, since many mobos struggle past 450FSB. So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

 

[curtisbouvier]

I'm gonna be getting 6400 DDR2, so 400 will be my limit.

I don't want to go too crazy hehe! Just enough to throw in that little extra pinch for games. I do a lot of adobe photoshop work / video encoding, that's the whole reason I went from the E8600 to the Q9550 in the first place.

I guess everything should be alright with 400x8.5 and a GTX280 !

 

[harpoon84]

RAM can be overclocked too you know.

I have DDR2-667 (PC5300?) and I have it running at DDR2-1000 speeds...

You'll be fine either way, the Q9550 is slightly better due to the higher multi but whether its worth an extra $50 is debatable.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you are only aiming at 400FSB then you have:

Q9450 8.0 mul = 8x 400 = 3.2ghz
Q9550 8.5 mul = 8.5 x 400 = 3.4ghz (+6.25% speed adv).

Is that worth $50 extra for you? Also there are some apps that benefit from faster memory bandwidth like WinRAR. But if you are on a tight budget, put $50 towards a faster graphics card or a bigger monitor or more ram.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

Actually its a 200mhz advantage on all 4 cores

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

Actually its a 200mhz advantage on all 4 cores

only when it has larger cache.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

Actually its a 200mhz advantage on all 4 cores

only when it has larger cache.

No all the time, regardless of the amount of cache

so what you are saying is that with less cache only some cores are overclocked, the others stay at stock speeds ? That would be a No

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

Actually its a 200mhz advantage on all 4 cores

only when it has larger cache.

No all the time, regardless of the amount of cache

so what you are saying is that with less cache only some cores are overclocked, the others stay at stock speeds ? That would be a No

no im saying when you compare a quadcore with 6M cache ie Q9400

Vs.

Same clocked dual core with also 6M cache E8600

You'll see same performance unless the the software is rendered to use 4 cores.

You cant use the other 2 cores unless the software knows to look for them.

 

[tallman45]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45

Originally posted by: harpoon84
So you could potentially get a ~200MHz higher overclock with the Q9550.

Actually its a 200mhz advantage on all 4 cores

only when it has larger cache.

No all the time, regardless of the amount of cache

so what you are saying is that with less cache only some cores are overclocked, the others stay at stock speeds ? That would be a No

no im saying when you compare a quadcore with 6M cache ie Q9400

Vs.

Same clocked dual core with also 6M cache E8600

You'll see same performance unless the the software is rendered to use 4 cores.

You cant use the other 2 cores unless the software knows to look for them.

XP or Vista knows to look for them, all 4 cores would be used, it does not depend solely on the app knowing how to use 4 cores

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: tallman45


XP or Vista knows to look for them, all 4 cores would be used, it does not depend solely on the app knowing how to use 4 cores

you have no idea how many people will jump me if i said that statement out.

If the program was not written for multi threaded reasons, like most games and software, No having 4 cores is not > having 2 cores.

if you think every software out in this world known to man uses 4 cores just cuz its Vista and XP certified, then no, your wrongly informed my friend.

 

[secretanchitman]

8.0 x 333 = 2.6Ghz = Q9450
8.5 x 333 = 2.83Ghz = Q9550

since you said you're going to be running it at 400FSB:

8.0 x 400 = 3.2Ghz = Q9450
8.5 x 400 = 3.4Ghz = Q9550

if you wanted the max overclock between those two cpus, i would get the Q9550, even though it would probably overclock 200mhz higher. but honestly, i'd just stick with the Q9450, a 200mhz difference (across all 4 cores for tallman45's sake) wont be noticeable at all...a few percent at best.

 

[GundamF91]

I have Q9450, and it's overclockable to 3.6Ghz, but runs cooler if you dial it down to 3.2 or 3.4Ghz. If $50 makes no difference to you, get the Q9550, as you can probably reach higher overclock "easier", meaning less tweaking the board to hit the overclock.

In reality though, and in actual overclocking limitations, it makes little difference between these two, just like Q6600 vs. Q6700. With either Q9450/Q9550, you can hit 8.0x450=3.6Ghz, or 8.5x423.5=3.6Ghz. My DDR2-800 memory can easily keep up with board and CPU to run at 900mhz speed. So as long as you have good board and memory, either Q9450 and Q9550 should hit 3.6Ghz.

But when you're running at 3.6Ghz, your real enemy is temperature and voltage. Unless you have a fantastic sample, your CPU will be running pretty hot for the 45nm Hi-K gate. I don't like to burn up my CPU since they're relatively expensive, also I'd hate to loose my CPU during critical use. Also, 3.6Ghz quad-core 3 years from now will probably still be more than enough for most applications. If you're gaming, then it's really the GPU upgrade you should be concerned with. Even 5 years from now, I think the Yorkfield would still work well as a general computer. Pentium4 came out in 2000, and most chips of its class still run well in today's computing environment. So I think in the long run, it makes little difference, and you might as well save $50 and get yourself something useful, such as better GPU, more RAM, or better PSU. My best suggestion is to get a Uninterruptible power supply battery, you'll thank me everytime when you have a power outage.

 

[Mwing]

Buy higher end video card with the $50 you save, more harddrive, more ram, if you are satified on those, then buy the 9550

 

[bryanW1995]

gundam, you are incorrect. most 65nm quads do max out at around 3.6 on air and rarely creep up much higher than that even on high end water. subzero MIGHT get to 4.0 on a QX6850 but that's about the limit. the 45nm quads, otoh, can get well over 4.0 on air with a proper multiplier. I fully expect to see Q9650's at over 4ghz b/c the 9x multi only requires 445 fsb to get there. having that extra .5 multi for the bypical overclocker is the difference between 3.6 and 3.825. If that's not a big deal to you then get the 9450, if it IS a big deal then get the 9550.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
RAM can be overclocked too you know.

I have DDR2-667 (PC5300?) and I have it running at DDR2-1000 speeds...

You'll be fine either way, the Q9550 is slightly better due to the higher multi but whether its worth an extra $50 is debatable.

Pretty impressive memory OC for DDR2-667.

Just for my 2 centavos, I probably won't go quad for some time yet. Nothing I do requires it. I'd prefer less heat dissipation and better OCs with the 2 cores I do have. An E8500 or E8600 is in my near future . I have to admit, even with what I have now, everything is smooth as butter. A new CPU would just be for an effort to hit 4 GHz stable on a microATX rig.

If it were me and I really were going quad I'd go for the Q9550.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: curtisbouvier
I'm gonna be getting 6400 DDR2, so 400 will be my limit.

I don't want to go too crazy hehe! Just enough to throw in that little extra pinch for games. I do a lot of adobe photoshop work / video encoding, that's the whole reason I went from the E8600 to the Q9550 in the first place.

I guess everything should be alright with 400x8.5 and a GTX280 !

most ram these days is so incredibly cheap that for $5 or so more you could get 2x1 of 4-4-4-12 pc 6400 instead of 2x1 of 5-5-5-15. The 4-4-4-12 is usually good up to around 1000 mhz, so 500 fsb, at stock rated voltages. just make sure to shoot for units with low ratings at "stock" settings. For example, most pc6400 is rated at 1.8v for 5-5-5-15 at ddr2 800 settings, but it might need 2.0, 2.1, or even 2.2 v to get the 4-4-4-12 settings to work properly. That's all they do with pc 8000 or pc 8500, too, they just factory oc it and bump the "default" voltages up a few notches.

 

[aigomorla]

Q9650 is still going to be my strongest recomendation for people after 4ghz on a quad under 700 dollars.

 

[bryanW1995]

no doubt the q9650 is going to be a great cpu. It's just a LOT more than the 9550 now for only a couple hundred mhz. the 9450 to 9550 jump is probably in line with the price increase, but when you get into the $500+ cpus these days you are reaching diminishing returns. Also, with nehalem just around the corner it behooves us to keep our costs in line and set ourselves up to be able to sell our yorkies for enough money to justify the upgrade. Another way to look at it is this: would you rather have a 9650 for $500 or a nehalem 2.66 ghz bloomfield for $300? I think that we would all prefer the latter, so fiscal responsibility is the order of the day until nov

 

[divide by zero]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45


XP or Vista knows to look for them, all 4 cores would be used, it does not depend solely on the app knowing how to use 4 cores

you have no idea how many people will jump me if i said that statement out.

If the program was not written for multi threaded reasons, like most games and software, No having 4 cores is not > having 2 cores.

if you think every software out in this world known to man uses 4 cores just cuz its Vista and XP certified, then no, your wrongly informed my friend.

But if you are running multiple applications won't XP and Vista assign those apps to different cores to spread out the load?

And OP, what is this $50 difference you speak of? On www.pricewatch.com and www.newegg.com The q9450 and q9550 are within two dollars of one another, $312/314 on pricewatch and $325/$326 on newegg.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: divide by zero

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: tallman45


XP or Vista knows to look for them, all 4 cores would be used, it does not depend solely on the app knowing how to use 4 cores

you have no idea how many people will jump me if i said that statement out.

If the program was not written for multi threaded reasons, like most games and software, No having 4 cores is not > having 2 cores.

if you think every software out in this world known to man uses 4 cores just cuz its Vista and XP certified, then no, your wrongly informed my friend.

But if you are running multiple applications won't XP and Vista assign those apps to different cores to spread out the load?

And OP, what is this $50 difference you speak of? On www.pricewatch.com and www.newegg.com The q9450 and q9550 are within two dollars of one another, $312/314 on pricewatch and $325/$326 on newegg.

I think the point he is trying to make, s that if the program in not highly multithreaded, it's not going to run any faster on 4 cores than it would on 2. It doesn't matter if it spreads them out across the 4 cores, it still only running as fast as if you had 2 cores, because it's not fully utilizing all 4 cores.