Home
Monday, March 27, 2017
9:50:17 AM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > CPUs and Cooling

Forums | CPUs and Cooling Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
  1  
Q9650 versus Q9550
Tone2b 
28/8/08 9:12:13 AM
Serf
I am about to buy a new system (yes even though Nehalem is coming). I was waiting for the Q9650 which is now available at some Australian online retailers for between $750 - $775. In seeing the price, I need to determine do I get a Q9550 and overclock, or pay the extra $300 for the 0.17Ghz increase. What are everyone's thoughts and does anyone know if there are any other advantages to having the Q9650, especially for such a high premium? I do note that I am not too keen on overclocking and would rather let the system run standard freqs etc.

To assist feedback, the system will be mainly be used for gaming and will comprise the following:

ASUS X48 Premium Wifi
Thermalright Ultra 120 w/ 120mm fan
4GB OCZ 1600 DDR3 (CL 7) (2 x 2gb)
ASUS 4870x2
Azunetech X-Fi
2 x 500Gb Seagate Drives
LG HD DVD/Blu ray Burner
ASUS DVD Burner
Coolmaster Case (690)
OCZ 1010W Power supply
DVICO TV Tuner
Apacer card reader
Vista Ultimate 64 bit

-----

Doctor Octopus 
28/8/08 9:39:03 AM
Master
Well there's no doubt in my mind that you would get the extra 0.17GHz out of the Q9550, however the Q9650 is only faster due to a higher multiplier, and therefore you would essentially get a higher overclock out of it when pushing the two.

Does this make it worth $300 more, FUCK NO! Infact, if you've done little overclocking you'd be lucky to get that 0.17GHz more from the Q9650 compared to the Q9550. Definitely not worth it, that sort of money could go to something much more useful, or be saved for something later on :-)

-----
"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic." - The Christian Forums

mark84 
28/8/08 11:02:49 AM
Hero
Guru


I agree, Q9550 is the better option and if your willing to do a little bit of overclocking it'll easily surpass Q9650 stock speeds.

Can get my Q9550 up to 3.9GHz with out trouble.

-----
QX9650 | HD4870 | 2x WD3000GLFS RAID0 | Swiftech Storm | 2407WFP |

AtomicMPC Firefox extension
http://tinyurl.com/2qabr7

The Truth About Graphics Power Requirements V2
http://tinyurl.com/cj3pw

SceptreCore 
28/8/08 8:02:40 PM
Guru

Quote by mark84
I agree, Q9550 is the better option and if your willing to do a little bit of overclocking it'll easily surpass Q9650 stock speeds.

Can get my Q9550 up to 3.9GHz with out trouble.


The 9650 I believe reaches 4GHz with ease. And when expertly cooled, 5.5GHz

-----
Greatest Sayings Of Our Time:
Quote by sora3
...What drivers are you using? If you say the drivers on your CD, I will phone you and tell you that I will bone your f*cking dog...



elmo198 
28/8/08 8:54:28 PM
Champion

I own a q9550, and at 430fsb I can clock that sucker to 3.6ghz with ease. I have seen ppl go as high as 480fsb, but really depends on the mobo you got and most good ram will do great OC, but is the north bridge I worry most, gets very bloody hot when OC. am also using a P5E deluxe mobo with X48 chipset. I hear P45 oc very well too.

-----
http://users.tpg.com.au/elmie/linux/
http://users.tpg.com.au/elmie/windows/

mark84 
28/8/08 9:34:13 PM
Hero
Guru


I've dropped my Q9550 into both an X48 and P45 board and hit a 460MHz fsb wall with both. Even my QX9650 hits the same wall on the P45. Could have something to do with my cooling but that's another topic.

I think the bottom line is if you're willing to do a little OCing, even just with the stock fan, go the Q9550 and save the money.

-----
QX9650 | HD4870 | 2x WD3000GLFS RAID0 | Swiftech Storm | 2407WFP |

AtomicMPC Firefox extension
http://tinyurl.com/2qabr7

The Truth About Graphics Power Requirements V2
http://tinyurl.com/cj3pw

Tone2b 
29/8/08 10:09:31 AM
Serf
Thanks for eveyone's advice. Now after reading about the new Nehalem architecture, I am wondering about whether I should wait for the x58 and the 2.93Ghz bloomfield chip?

-----

  1  
Forums | CPUs and Cooling