E8600 beats out Q9550? Help quickly!!! Need to send back.

[Spitfire7]

This cant be so is it? According to this benchmark http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-1680x1050,818.html the E8600 is way better then the Q9550 that I just bought for more money.

I can only assume its because the E8600 is at 3.3Ghz and the Q9550 is at 2.83Ghz and Crysis doesn't utilize more then two cores.

So if I OC mine to 3.4Ghz which I have it at right now stable, does that mean now mine is better and would perform better on that benchmark? Please tell me it is, or please just tell me the truth quickly so i can send it back and get the E8600 instead. Hurry I only have a few days left to send it back to Newegg.

What I am trying to figure out is, is it just the Ghz that is making the difference? If it is then I guess I will keep it for the future quad games and keep it OCed to 3.4Ghz.

Please let me know right away!!!!!

 

[Cheesevillage]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054&Tpk=E8600

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041


Gee, $50 difference. That's okay, enthusiasts aren't supposed to be very price sensitive.



Have you seen the highly clocked e4300s take on processors worth four times as much?

Have you considered the fact that you get two more cores for that money?

Further, its not hard to figure out whether its Ghz or other related even without using google.
Clock your CPU to 3.3Ghz and see what happens under the same conditions.

I'm amazed you can overclock considering your logical ineptitude.

 

[Spitfire7]

The thing is yeah it was about $70 difference in price and when I wetn from an e6600 to the Q9550 only notice a slight performance increase and when I OCed it to 3.4Ghz I didnt notice any difference at all. So why pay for something that you dont use or dont see a difference with. Thats all i am saying, but if you guys say no I should be seeing a significant difference with the Q9550 then I may have a broken one and will just replace it. I like getting what I pay for and not just paying for a name and so far I have only payed for the name, so I feel.

 

[jerreece]

My initial reaction is..... "Over Reaction". But that's just me. I think you're freaking out over much of nothing, personally.

It's your money. But I'd never spend that much on a single component. But that's cause I can't afford to blow that much on one component either.

Dual-Cores typically beat out Quads in games right now. Period. Cause games aren't designed well enough for multi-core CPUs yet. Crysis isn't always the absolute best benchmark either, as it stresses every system.

How big a difference you see from your e6600 to a Q9550 isn't entirely CPU related. Memory bandwidth, video card capabilities, motherboard chipset, and the software you're using play big roles in whether you can unleash the absolute abilities of that Q9550 in the first place.

All depends on what you're doing. Gaming, video editing, etc. But, right now, high clock speed dual-cores typically beat out Quads for most games. Just the way it is so far.

Give it a couple years, dual-cores will be bargain bin. Quads will be mainstream, and octo or whatever we get to will be the high end stuff. ;0

 

[Spitfire7]

My initial reaction is..... "Over Reaction". But that's just me. I think you're freaking out over much of nothing, personally.

It's your money. But I'd never spend that much on a single component. But that's cause I can't afford to blow that much on one component either.

Dual-Cores typically beat out Quads in games right now. Period. Cause games aren't designed well enough for multi-core CPUs yet. Crysis isn't always the absolute best benchmark either, as it stresses every system.

How big a difference you see from your e6600 to a Q9550 isn't entirely CPU related. Memory bandwidth, video card capabilities, motherboard chipset, and the software you're using play big roles in whether you can unleash the absolute abilities of that Q9550 in the first place.

All depends on what you're doing. Gaming, video editing, etc. But, right now, high clock speed dual-cores typically beat out Quads for most games. Just the way it is so far.

Give it a couple years, dual-cores will be bargain bin. Quads will be mainstream, and octo or whatever we get to will be the high end stuff. ;0

So all I do pretty much is play games right now, so you think I should send it back and get the e8600 and some money back? honestly, will i see a bit of improvement in gaming performance going down to the e8600?

 

[Silverion77]

The Intel processors work pretty self explanatory in the same architecture.
Higher clock = better frames but thats only in games or any app that uses only 2 Cores.
The E8600 is at 3.33 versus ur 2.83 so yes it will perform better. If u overclock ur quad to 3.33 ull be about the same.

Also i wouldnt use that Crysis benchmark as a suitable test. For one, Crysis is limited by GPU power first before ur processor. I mean srysly, GPU is first and by the time a dual/quad matters ur already pulling off crazy frames so it doesnt matter. I mean i get 230+ fps in CoD4 usually unless theres a lot of action. But 210 or 230 its not like it matters ffs. U think u can tell the difference of that 20 frames?

And Habitat...Ive seen the Q9550 stable at 4 GHz. Most do it on water for temp reasons, but ive seen many builds with teh Q9550 at or just under 4GHz with a good air cooler

Now i kno ill be flamed here but its the truth.
Some games are moving towards quad utilization. Not soon but definitely it will happen. And when it does ur 2.83 quad will win or be around the same as a 4.5 GHz dual, but once u overclock it ull win.

 

[Spitfire7]

The Intel processors work pretty self explanatory in the same architecture.
Higher clock = better frames but thats only in games or any app that uses only 2 Cores.
The E8600 is at 3.33 versus ur 2.83 so yes it will perform better. If u overclock ur quad to 3.33 ull be about the same.

Also i wouldnt use that Crysis benchmark as a suitable test. For one, Crysis is limited by GPU power first before ur processor. I mean srysly, GPU is first and by the time a dual/quad matters ur already pulling off crazy frames so it doesnt matter. I mean i get 230+ fps in CoD4 usually unless theres a lot of action. But 210 or 230 its not like it matters ffs. U think u can tell the difference of that 20 frames?

And Habitat...Ive seen the Q9550 stable at 4 GHz. Most do it on water for temp reasons, but ive seen many builds with teh Q9550 at or just under 4GHz with a good air cooler

Now i kno ill be flamed here but its the truth.
Some games are moving towards quad utilization. Not soon but definitely it will happen. And when it does ur 2.83 quad will win or be around the same as a 4.5 GHz dual, but once u overclock it ull win.

Isn't there anything to say about the 12MB cache with the Q9550 or does that also not really matter compared to the 6MB with the E8600.

So my Q9550 at 3.4Ghz is equivalent if not better in game performance then the stock E8600 3.3Ghz?

Also, keeping it at 3.4Ghz, I wouldn't notice any difference in game performance by getting the E8600 at 3.3Ghz?

 

[Silverion77]

ATM, the intels go by clock in games. (and architecture but were only talking about Penryn here)

A dual at 3.33 will do about the same as a quad at 3.33
The Cache helps but doesnt make an amazing difference.

The only reason id change is rly if u want to Overclock the E8600. They OC to around 4-4.5 which is out of reach of the quads.
But if u got the E8600 and left it stock there would be no difference between the stock 3.33 and the OCed Quad at 3.33

 

[Silverion77]

Ill lay it out simply using several numbers:
Q9550: stock 2.83 and OCed 3.4
E8600: stock 3.33 and OCed 4.0+

Q9550 2.83 stock<E8600 3.33 stock (because 3.33 is more than 2.83)
E8600 3.33 stock~=Q9550 3.4 OC (about the same with more favor to Q9550)
Q9550 3.4 OC<E8600 4.0+ OC

Now keep in mind that this is with dual processed games only which is where we are now. In any quad utilizing game ur Q9550 will win.
All i can say is i have a Q9550 and love it. I average around 50 fps in Crysis. Indoors i get around 70-100fps (dont ask how) and outdoors i go to 30-50 (the 30 is in rly intense environments.
Some maps i do only avg. 30 but i just turn off my lights and it looks fine

 

[Spitfire7]

Thanks Silverion77. You ever get into Flight Sim X? Curious how your 9800GX2 with your Q9550 is doing with that game. They say FSX is a fully Quad utilizing game and needs it.

Also, I see you have made the choice of the Q9550 over the E8600. What clocks are you reaching with your CPU?

 

[Silverion77]

Sadly i havent tried OCing yet....i kno its pathetic
But i havent gotten a lot of time lately

Also i only have a stock cooler which isnt doing too hot right now (lol didnt mean the Pun ROFL)
Im either going to get a nice air cooler, but im doing some builds soon and if i can make some cash im gonna see if i can go H2O but thats cause im crazy and OCD.
For a good air cooler on Xtremesystems.com i generally see good OCs in the 3.6-3.85 and some going to 4.0

I havent tried Flight Sim X yet...never rly got into those but i may try it.

 

[Spitfire7]

Sadly i havent tried OCing yet....i kno its pathetic
But i havent gotten a lot of time lately

Also i only have a stock cooler which isnt doing too hot right now (lol didnt mean the Pun ROFL)
Im either going to get a nice air cooler, but im doing some builds soon and if i can make some cash im gonna see if i can go H2O but thats cause im crazy and OCD.
For a good air cooler on Xtremesystems.com i generally see good OCs in the 3.6-3.85 and some going to 4.0

I havent tried Flight Sim X yet...never rly got into those but i may try it.

I am looking for a new GPU. What are your thoughts on the GTX 280. Should I wait and save for that or just get the GX2 at a significantly lower price?

 

[Silverion77]

I personally do not like the Price/Performance of the 280

Id either get the new 216 processor 260 (remade one) or the HD4870
I got teh GX2 becasue it had great price/performance beating the GTX 280 in all benchmarks of the games i played. But with newer drivers that changed. Im still happy with it though

 

[jerreece]

Isn't there anything to say about the 12MB cache with the Q9550 or does that also not really matter compared to the 6MB with the E8600.

So my Q9550 at 3.4Ghz is equivalent if not better in game performance then the stock E8600 3.3Ghz?

Also, keeping it at 3.4Ghz, I wouldn't notice any difference in game performance by getting the E8600 at 3.3Ghz?

The 12MB cache vs 6MB cache really doesn't matter with existing games. Basically, the 6MB cache in the E8600 is being used by two processors. The 12MB cache in a Q9550 is used by 4 processors, therefore two share 6MB, the other two share the other 6MB.

So if the game only uses a maximum of TWO processors, you're still only using 6MB of cache.

Silveron77 is right though. The future is Quad +. If you like to keep background tasks running (antivirus, Fraps, etc) the quad might give you a small edge there, if those apps are actually doing stuff. Not that I recommend running Antivirus scan while playing a game!! Your hard drive would limit you there.

 

[Zorg]

Let it eat.

You won't be getting back enough cash, after the restocking fee, for the aggravation. Later you will be happy you had the quad.

 

[eklipz330]

Have you seen the highly clocked e4300s take on processors worth four times as much?

e4300's have a overclocking cap of around 3.4ghz, that's with watercooling

2. The quad can't do 4.0 ghz easily on stock or any voltage stable for that matter. Let alone put a fight with the 4.5 ghz below 1.4v. I don't even want to mention the 5.0+ ghz I've seen on air, that's just brutal.

that's a lie, i've seen the q9550[e0] hit 4.2 on air with a certain batch of processors... dude put up benchmarks, prime orthos and all that, he was 110% stable @ 1.35v

which also makes the purchase of the q9650 very questionable... the q9550 can pretty much OC just as high even without the addition of the .5x multi as the q9650, and w/o the guarantee of an E0 stepping

 

[Spitfire7]

Alright so I should keep it and see if I can get her up to about 3.8 to 4. Lets see. Hey if I am at 3.4Ghz right now at 1.35Volts, what do I make my voltage for 3.8 to 4Ghz?

 

[Silverion77]

No way to tell....

Just keep OCing like u would.
Raise frequency, watch temps, and if u crash raise vCore

 

[Spitfire7]

Ok will do. Thanks. Hey Silverion, is there really even a noticeable reason to go higher? I mean I can crank this thing up to the max limit, but will there even be a point in doing that other then just showing off a benchmark that doesn't hold for every day game play? Should I really even do it?

 

[Zorg]

Not really.

Wait until you need the extra cycles for something specific. Based on your original question, I have to assume that you have limited OCing experience. You will shorten the life of the CPU at extremes, possibly to zero.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

 

[Spitfire7]

Not really.

Wait until you need the extra cycles for something specific. Based on your original question, I have to assume that you have limited OCing experience. You will shorten the life of the CPU at extremes, possibly to zero.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

Zorg,

Yes you are right. I have only COed my GPU successfully and my previous e6600 from 2.4 to 3.2 successfully and stable. So I would still say I am new to it and cross my fingers when doing it.

So you suggest just going back to stock 2.83Ghz and walk away? I do have it stable at 3.4Ghz without any issues, but like I said before, not really any difference to be honest.

 

[Silverion77]

if u have it at 3.4 just leave it

free performance whether u see it or not and its not anything extreme so ur fine

 

[eklipz330]

agree'd... only reason to really overclock your cpu nowadays is to relieve bottleneck, the lower the res, the higher the OC should be...only because games rely heavily on the gpu now

so @ 1680x1050, 3.4-3.6ghz should do just fine.

i've seen at 1280x1024, even an OC'd core2extreme at 4.0ghz just doesn't cut it

 

[Zorg]

So you suggest just going back to stock 2.83Ghz and walk away? I do have it stable at 3.4Ghz without any issues, but like I said before, not really any difference to be honest.

That depends, what are your Prime95 small FFT temps measured with Core Temp or Real Temp?

 

[Spitfire7]

Crysis Benchmark: Q9550 CPU

CPU 2.83Ghz Stock
Best Average fps: 29.79
Min fps: 14.96
Max fps: 41.96

CPU 3.4Ghz Overclocked
Best Average fps: 29.69
Min. fps: 14.87
Max fps: 41.54


Help me out here guys. Why did my fps all go down drastically when I overclocked it?