Does Q9550's cache beat an E7200 @ 3.8G

[50bmg]

See my sig. My E7200 is at 3.8G and 3M cache.

I currently run Farcry2 @ 45FPS COD5 hits 70-90fps. Both at the highest settings, 4xAA, 1680x1050 and with CCC at the highest.

3dmark06 gives me ~16800 with a cpu score of 3400.

I was wondering, would a Q9550 running at ~3.2 to 3.4G with the 12M cache be comparable to my e7200?

I would lose 400-600Mhz but would gain 9M cache and 2 cores. For the future i would be better off, but for present gaming how would the Q9550 perform.

Another question: What would the temps be like for 4 core running at 400Mhz x 8.5 = 3.4Ghz?

 

[50bmg]

bump

 

[angry_ducky]

If you're happy with the current performance of your system; I.E. if it does everything you want it to do, then I'd just leave it as is. If you do a lot of video and Photoshop work, then the Q9550 would probably be worth it, but most games don't benefit from quad cores yet. You could always just hold out for a year or two and upgrade to i7.

 

[jsc]

Another question: What would the temps be like for 4 core running at 400Mhz x 8.5 = 3.4Ghz?

My Q9550 (C1 stepping ) is running at 3.6 GHz. (425 MHz FSB) with a TRUE in an Antec 900 case. My P95 core temps are 58 C to 61 C.

 

[50bmg]

Thanks, nice OC and temps.

How can i confirm stepping when purchasing? from say newegg, zip...?