[QUOTE=''bigblunt537'']Right now the Q9400 is around $189 and the Q9550 is around $230. Is the q9550 worth the extra cash? To me 2-3 fps isn't worth an additional $40 so I'm not sure how much the extra cache would benefit me. I do plan to overclock, but it will be a mild overclock and at best I'm hoping to hit 3.4 - 3.6 ghz. Please do not recommend that I get an I5 or I7. I'm not dishing out money on a motherboard and over priced DDr3 ram which would throw this small upgrade to around $600.Also i only use my pc for general applications and pc gaming.[/QUOTE]
Yes go with the Q9550 because it's faster and has more cacheQ9400 vs Q9550?
But how much of a performance boost would the extra cache really give me? I'm really serious about saving money right now.
[QUOTE=''bigblunt537'']But how much of a performance boost would the extra cache really give me? I'm really serious about saving money right now.[/QUOTE]
Hmm well usually the more cache the better but I couldn't find a decent benchmark for the Q9400 comparing it to the Q9550 however I did find that the Q9400 performs about the same as a Phenom II X4 940. So I guess go with the Q9400 then cause It's not too shabby either.
If you want to overclock, you want more L2 cache. The Q9400's 6MB of cache is going to struggle a bit more with a 3.6Ghz OC than the Q9550 and its 12MB L2 cache and higher stock clock. The Q9550 has nearly twice as many transistors even though both processors are built on the same architecture.
It all depends on what you really want from this processor. I personally would go with the Q9550.
cache won't make that much of a difference in terms of performance. what's important is how much you're planning on overclocking it by. By your standards a q9400 with adequate air cooling will get you to 3.4-3.6ghz no problem.
Thanks for the input. in case anyone checked out my thread look at this. I'm going to go with the q9550 for $159!http://microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0299412Going to order it tomorow. what an excellent deal.
ya I was about to mention microcenter. You gotta love that store, they're even selling the new i7 860 chips for 230 (undercutting all the competition)
for game nope for rendering it will be a bit better and make a difference. if all you do is gaming a highend quad is close to pointless as even the cheap ones are more than enough.
[QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95''][QUOTE=''bigblunt537'']But how much of a performance boost would the extra cache really give me? I'm really serious about saving money right now.[/QUOTE]
Hmm well usually the more cache the better but I couldn't find a decent benchmark for the Q9400 comparing it to the Q9550 however I did find that the Q9400 performs about the same as a Phenom II X4 940. So I guess go with the Q9400 then cause It's not too shabby either.[/QUOTE]
not in gaming, if you look up the benchmarks the athlon 2 x2 is = to the phenom 2 x2 in gaming but when it comes to video and rendering the phenom smokes the athlon. games only really care about clock speed and a few now cores, but cache does next to nothing.
[QUOTE=''imprezawrx500''][QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95''][QUOTE=''bigblunt537'']But how much of a performance boost would the extra cache really give me? I'm really serious about saving money right now.[/QUOTE] Hmm well usually the more cache the better but I couldn't find a decent benchmark for the Q9400 comparing it to the Q9550 however I did find that the Q9400 performs about the same as a Phenom II X4 940. So I guess go with the Q9400 then cause It's not too shabby either.[/QUOTE] not in gaming, if you look up the benchmarks the athlon 2 x2 is = to the phenom 2 x2 in gaming but when it comes to video and rendering the phenom smokes the athlon. games only really care about clock speed and a few now cores, but cache does next to nothing. [/QUOTE]Well luckily I found the q9550 for cheaper than the q9400 lol
Yeah now you're really gonna be able to puch Crysis in the gut eh?
[QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95'']Yeah now you're really gonna be able to puch Crysis in the gut eh?[/QUOTE]Not yet. i still need to either SLI my 9800GT or wait for the new Dx11 cards. Then I might try to take a shot at Crysis. Funny thing is despite many benchmarks saying you can't max crysis I used to be able to at 1680 x 1050 at 45-50 fps with both my previous SLI setup(9800GT's) overclocked.The reason I don;t have it SLI'd is because 1 died and the temps never reached past 65 C. I tried to put on a new cpu fan I bought after it started having artifacts and the manufacturer said since I replaced the fan I'm no longer under the warranty... What have I learned? Not to buy pny products again.
[QUOTE=''imprezawrx500''][QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95''][QUOTE=''bigblunt537'']But how much of a performance boost would the extra cache really give me? I'm really serious about saving money right now.[/QUOTE]
Hmm well usually the more cache the better but I couldn't find a decent benchmark for the Q9400 comparing it to the Q9550 however I did find that the Q9400 performs about the same as a Phenom II X4 940. So I guess go with the Q9400 then cause It's not too shabby either.[/QUOTE]
not in gaming, if you look up the benchmarks the athlon 2 x2 is = to the phenom 2 x2 in gaming but when it comes to video and rendering the phenom smokes the athlon. games only really care about clock speed and a few now cores, but cache does next to nothing. [/QUOTE]
The athlon II x2 250 is not identical to the Phenom II x2 550 in terms of performance, in fact the Phenom II X2 550 slightly outperforms the Athlon II x2 250 in gaming because it has much more cache and likewise the two processors run at the same clock speed. http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii550/9.html
[QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95'']Yeah now you're really gonna be able to puch Crysis in the gut eh?[/QUOTE]
piff a dual can max crysis easy but you will need to spend a fortune on your gpus to max it.
[QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95'']
Hmm well usually the more cache the better but I couldn't find a decent benchmark for the Q9400 comparing it to the Q9550 however I did find that the Q9400 performs about the same as a Phenom II X4 940. So I guess go with the Q9400 then cause It's not too shabby either.[/QUOTE]
not in gaming, if you look up the benchmarks the athlon 2 x2 is = to the phenom 2 x2 in gaming but when it comes to video and rendering the phenom smokes the athlon. games only really care about clock speed and a few now cores, but cache does next to nothing. [/QUOTE]
The athlon II x2 250 is not identical to the Phenom II x2 550 in terms of performance, in fact the Phenom II X2 550 slightly outperforms the Athlon II x2 250 in gaming because it has much more cache and likewise the two processors run at the same clock speed. http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii550/9.html[/QUOTE]
so a 3.1ghz cpu beats a 3ghz cpu what a surprise. games are clock dependent not cache dependent.
[QUOTE=''imprezawrx500''][QUOTE=''UltimateGamer95'']
not in gaming, if you look up the benchmarks the athlon 2 x2 is = to the phenom 2 x2 in gaming but when it comes to video and rendering the phenom smokes the athlon. games only really care about clock speed and a few now cores, but cache does next to nothing. [/QUOTE]
The athlon II x2 250 is not identical to the Phenom II x2 550 in terms of performance, in fact the Phenom II X2 550 slightly outperforms the Athlon II x2 250 in gaming because it has much more cache and likewise the two processors run at the same clock speed. http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii550/9.html[/QUOTE]
so a 3.1ghz cpu beats a 3ghz cpu what a surprise. games are clock dependent not cache dependent. [/QUOTE]
cough why does a Q9400 outperform a Q8400? because it has more cache. In fact cache is just as equally important as clock speed. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3559%26p=10
No comments:
Post a Comment