QX 9650 or Q9450

Unixlord · June 30th, 2008, 11:54 AM

Very few games gain anything from more than 2 cores and those that do gain a laughable amount of performance. The lower heat output, better stock performance and easier overclocking of a dual beats a quad in gaming any day (and specially during the scotching summer).

gen.Rage1991hrv · June 30th, 2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohammed2006

because one is 2.4 and the another is 3

hehehehe
ok you are smartest one

Cannyone · July 4th, 2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unixlord

Very few games gain anything from more than 2 cores and those that do gain a laughable amount of performance. The lower heat output, better stock performance and easier overclocking of a dual beats a quad in gaming any day (and specially during the scotching summer).

Well I know this used to be the case. But things are changing. For example: The game I've been playing allot of lately is Age of Conan, which is a real resource hog to be honest. At first I was overclocking a bit higher to get better fps. Then recently I got a small mod that allows me to set "CPU Affinity" - (It's called Age of Conan Quick Start - version 2.6.1). Once I used it to have the AoC executable use all 4 cores, I no longer needed to overclock. In fact I stopped overclocking my CPU at all. As I only see a very modest gain in performance with processor speed (that's going from 2.4GHz to 3GHz).

Now, I did order one of the new Wolfdale core Quads. A Q9450 (2.66GHz) to be specific. It features the 12MB L2 cache and 1333MHz FSB speed, as well as the 45nm process so it can run cooler. I expect that there will still be many games that perform better with 2 faster speed cores, but over time (as programmers learn how to implement features like this "Quickstart" program) that will eventually change. And they need to do this because we're rapidly approaching a "wall" of sorts, with regard to how fast processors can function efficiently. Intel knows this and that is why they are pushing for more cores....

Syncroneyes · July 4th, 2008, 12:37 PM

Its a price vs performance argument

I would go with a q9450 as the price is lower but the performance is still capable of being very high (and probably still relatively comparable to x9650 once its been overclocked) so from your smaller investment you will see a bigger return.

This would also then allow you to buy some other nice parts you mentioned..

Unixlord · July 4th, 2008, 03:38 PM

If you think overclocking is about bull like investment and return you are gravely mistaken.

Syncroneyes · July 4th, 2008, 04:39 PM

Damn, you mean to say that If i overclock my CPU my share prices won't go up too?

All i'm trying to say is that if he buys a Q9450 and overclocks it, will he not then be getting more performance for his money?

-And that increased level of performance won't be miles different to that of a x9650, it will still be a very powerful system.

mohammed2006 · July 5th, 2008, 01:49 AM

in most system you cant get over 1800 FSB with out water and if you have water not all motherboard can do more that that but with striker 2 extreme i could for my friend pc to lift the fsb to 2156 but that with striker any way with 1800 fsb and water you wont get more the 3.6 in q9450 cause the max X is x8 but with x9650 you can set to x11.5 or 12 to gain 5.4

and between 5.4 and 3.6 more that few miles

witch mean 50% increase

gen.Rage1991hrv · July 5th, 2008, 07:16 PM

mohammed
go buy your self a q9450 and qx9650 and test it
then show us solid facts
difference in this two processors are multiplier and difference is only 2-5% in performance
so no point of wasting 1000USD on cpu

there was no point of putting games benchmarks because all tests are almost same
and rest info check here
http://techgage.com/article/intel_co...9450_266ghz/13

Syncroneyes · July 5th, 2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mohammed2006

and between 5.4 and 3.6 more that few miles

OK but i was talking about the difference between a Q9450 being o/c to 3.6 maybe even 3.8 ghz against a stock QX9650 - the differnce there would not be so much

mohammed2006 · July 6th, 2008, 03:55 AM

Syncroneyes the Q9450 @ 3.2 will kill the QX9650 at stock but i was telling you where your 1000 are going they are wasted so you can get more oc ok i know the QX9650 is over priced but more oc mean more money.

.................

gen.Rage1991hrv i tested q9450 with my fried pc with striker2 and as i said we manege to make it run over 2000 fsb with water but the qx9650 i didnt test it but i am planing of getting new bilud with Qx9770 or grater cpu that will be avalabe after 6 moth when ill start my new pc it will be ether 3way sli gtx280 or 2* 4870x2

the defferent between q6600 and q9450. that i tested in 3dmark cpu test both @ 3.6 and @1800 fsb was q6600 = 5312 ,q9450=5354 this is nothing and i am sure if i did the test again ill get the same score in both ,but one test is with my pc ddr2 1250 and( 8800ultra if it efact) and another with my fried pc with ddr3 1600 and 9600gt

the defferent between q6600 and q9450 that i couldnt get my q6600 that high with out water but he could and kept it very cold ond more stable with only air and with lower voltage. i am runing my q6600 @4 and i am very happy.