Q6600 vs Q9550

[stickmansam]

I am upgrading an asus P5kE wifiAp from a e3300 OC at 3ghz(slapped on afm heatsink cuz high vid made stock hs impossible to OC). The choices are a Q6600 G0 for $60 and a Q9550 E0 for $100. Which one would be a better overclocker, with the board. I only have 800mhz ram so fsb 400-450 is the max i can OC it. I plan to pair it with a 7850 for 1080p gaming. The heatsink is a Glacial Tech 5610 Silent which probably won't let me OC that high anyways

http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2203

Which one would you guys recommend?

 

[festerovic]

While both could benchmark with 10-15% differences, I doubt you would see much real world difference between them. I have both, they were both used for gaming in the same machine at some point, and I couldn't tell the difference. I got 3.6ghz off the q6600 and 3.4 ghz off the 9550, but that doesn't mean much.

Since the price is almost double for about 15% more speed at stock it doesn't make much sense to get the 9550 other than to have a newer chip.

 

[stickmansam]

I plan to overclock them so OC'd to say around 3-3.4ghz (due to heatsink restrictions), will there significant differences in how far i can OC them?

 

[thently]

I had a q9400 OC to 3.8 for about 3 years it was rock solid till it wasnt LOL. The q9550 will run much cooler and OC a little better. Your call like the other guy said it won't be a huge diffrence..

Thent

 

[sixajd]

I plan to overclock them so OC'd to say around 3-3.4ghz (due to heatsink restrictions), will there significant differences in how far i can OC them?

I've got a Q9550 running completely stable @ 3.83 GHz, at only 1.25 VCORE. I'm doing 451 x 8.5 multi on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P board. This is with 8 GB of OCZ Platinum ram, Corsair TX 650 watt PSU. My HSF is a ZALMAN CNPS9500A-LED and it keeps it pretty cool. If I run prime95 for a while it maxes out around 65 c which is well within the safe limits of the processor. During normal usage and gaming etc it never gets above 55c

My processor will go much higher, I've had it running at 4 GHz before but it wasn't completely stable and I didn't feel like fiddling with it so I just turned it back down some. So I'd recommend you get the Q9550 for the fact that it's on the 45nm die, will run cooler, overclocks like a beast, and also has 12MB L2 cache vs 8 on the 6600.

 

[swifty_morgan]

the 1333fsb and the extra cache on the 9550 made it a better processor. always found it "snappier" and faster than the 6600. and if I was in a position where I had to choose it would be with the 9550.

 

[stickmansam]

the 1333fsb and the extra cache on the 9550 made it a better processor. always found it "snappier" and faster than the 6600. and if I was in a position where I had to choose it would be with the 9550.

And this is with both of them Oc'd? And this benefit outweighs the cost (i plan to use this comp for at least 3-5 years)

I've got a Q9550 running completely stable @ 3.83 GHz, at only 1.25 VCORE. I'm doing 451 x 8.5 multi on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P board. This is with 8 GB of OCZ Platinum ram, Corsair TX 650 watt PSU. My HSF is a ZALMAN CNPS9500A-LED and it keeps it pretty cool. If I run prime95 for a while it maxes out around 65 c which is well within the safe limits of the processor. During normal usage and gaming etc it never gets above 55c

My processor will go much higher, I've had it running at 4 GHz before but it wasn't completely stable and I didn't feel like fiddling with it so I just turned it back down some. So I'd recommend you get the Q9550 for the fact that it's on the 45nm die, will run cooler, overclocks like a beast, and also has 12MB L2 cache vs 8 on the 6600.

Did you manage to reach that OC with 800 mhz ram?

 

[swifty_morgan]

doesn't make a difference does it ?

 

[stickmansam]

Well oC'd they would have similar FSB's so only difference is cache and arch

 

[sixajd]

And this is with both of them Oc'd? And this benefit outweighs the cost (i plan to use this comp for at least 3-5 years)



Did you manage to reach that OC with 800 mhz ram?

My ram is actually 1066 but I have it running at a 1:1 ratio with the FSB so it's at 902 DDR. On my mobo, the ram speed is adjustable independent of the FSB, so i'm pretty sure I would still be able to hit the same processor overclock with a lower ram speed. My main point was to show that the 9550 is a good overclocker with minimum effort, if you have a good motherboard.

 

[festerovic]

Stickmansam, the asus board you listed on top will allow the RAM to run at whatever speed you want, not limited by the dividers they give you. So you should be fine to OC to 500 mhz if you need to.

 

[cjl]

Personally, I'd take the 9550. The 6600 was a great processor, but the 9550 would run faster with lower power usage, so you should be able to get it substantially faster, especially if you're limited by your cooling setup.

 

[stickmansam]

Okay i booted up my motherboard and found that i was missing the option to change my CPU ratio... and it seems that i can't change my mem speeds beyond what they give me, do you have the link to the info?

 

[stickmansam]

Here are some screenies

 

[stickmansam]

Okay so I flashed to bios to the latest one and can change CPU ratio but still can't change memory below 800mhz when I run a fsb of 1600MHz

 

[swifty_morgan]

why don't you lower the multiplier and jack up the ram ?

 

[stickmansam]

What i meant is that the board only has the normal memory dividers/mulitpliers and with a 1600FSB the mem has to run at 800mhz and i have no idea how my ram will behave OC as my e3300 has a FSB wall at 350 so i can't est the OC of the ram

 

[festerovic]

DDR2-401 Mhz is representing a memory divider of 1:1.

FSB of 1600 is actually 400mhz. Memory divider of 1:1 = 400mhz = DDR2 800mhz.

You should be fine.

 

[stickmansam]

I've decided to get the q9550as it'll save mroe power and OC a bit better

 

[stickmansam]

Best answer selected by Stickmansam.