Q9400 or Q9550?

[lKashl]

Hey guys, i was just wondering whether anyone could help me in my decision between a Q9400 and Q9550. Ive checked all over the internet but can't seem to find any comparisons (and very few reviews on the Q9400). The price differences are also pretty substantial (here in aus, its about $100 but the price cuts intel announced for the 9550 are yet to kick in).
Any help would be appreciated

[Cowboy]

Ok, I'll try to do my best here.


Intel core2 Quads are usually overpowered for most gamers needs. Therefore it matters not which one you choose they will both perform similarly in games. At the very least, the difference between the two would not be worth $100.

The other side of that coin is Overclocking, and with that comes the synthetic benchmarks. The Q9400, while a respectable chip, cannot overclock as high as a Q9550 or Q9650. This is because the Q9550 and Q9650 have a higher multiplier than the Q9400.

So, the choice in the end is yours:
Gaming/ General use = Q9400
Overclocking/ benchmark glory = Q9550 (or i7 )

[Soultribunal]

One thing to add as well, the Q9550 has Double the Available Cache as the Q9400.
Cache makes a big difference when it comes to processors.
If I had the Funds, I'd jump on the Q9550.
On a Budget , go with the Q9400.

Regards,
ST

[DK2]

“Prepare for Glory!” get the Q9550.


Are 300 quotes outta style now?

[Maplicito]

I own a Q9550, and it's been great so far. I believe it runs 2.83GHz stock (this is off the top of my head, but I'm sure someone will correct me if necessary), but I was able to overclock it to around 3.8GHz on air without tweaking anything but the FSB, and it would idle at around 45 to 50 or so degrees (using an Arctic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 heatsink). Under load, it would approach 55 to 58 degrees.

Not needing that much power, I've backed it down to 3.4GHz, the temperatures are fairly similar - I'm guessing I wouldn't notice a lot of difference in most applications going to 2.83GHz, but there's a handful of things I do that are more processor intensive. For encoding DVD's, I have a program that utilizes all 4 cores, and loads them pretty good, and I do a fair bit of multitasking while that's going on, so I appreciate the extra horsepower.

Unfortunately, I can't compre it to the Q9400 for you, but I hope that helps some.

[Lpfan4ever]

I seem to be one of the only like, 6 people in the world who own a Q9400.
With my GA-DS4-X48 I pushed my Q9400 to 3.6GHz (450FSB) under water. Under air I kept it at 3.36GHz(420FSB). The multiplier is only 8x, which does suck, and only the 6MB of cache compared to the 12MB of the Q9550.
Although I may be saying the Q9550 is better and will yield better results, I think that even this processor is overkill for most games, let alone regular everyday things. I say go for the Q9400 if you want to save a bit, but if you do want to have a bit more performance and OC'ing headroom, go for the Q9550.

[Magnetar]

+1 Q9550

[lKashl]

Originally Posted by DK2

Are 300 quotes outta style now?

Hahah they were, but you brought them back in

Thanks for the help though guys, although i have just one more question to add, is the q9400 more powerful than the q6600?

[Soultribunal]

Originally Posted by lKashl

Hahah they were, but you brought them back in

Thanks for the help though guys, although i have just one more question to add, is the q9400 more powerful than the q6600?

I think they would probably be very close.

Q6600 = 8MB Cache, 1066 FSB, 2.4Ghz Clock
Q9400 = 6MB Cache, 1333 FSB, 2.66Ghz Clock

Really, whichever of those two turns out to be cheaper for you, would suffice.

From an OC standpoint, I've seen some wild things out of the Q6600, they really are beast chips if you have the Thermal Headroom and are not afraid of a little Voltage.

Regards,
ST

[hertz9753]

Q9550. I really wanted a 9550 or even better a 9650, but last summer the most I could afford was the 9450 at $329US, would have loved the extra multipliers.