Q9550 Versus Q9300

[mtotho]

Ok, i am in a bit of a bind here. I would like to know which of these processors to get.

Currently i own a Q6600 (please dont say "dont upgrade)

My q6600 is B3 steppings, which means it does not overclock very much.

From what i can tell, the only difference between the q9550 and q9300 are:

Q9550
8.5x multi
12mb Cache

Q9300
7.5x multi
6mb cache

Obviously i know the Q9550 is better. It is more overclockable and has more cache.. but does the more cache bring with it enough of a performance boost as to justify 70$ more (320$ vs $250)

I read the Tom's Hardware article where they compared Core 2 duos with 1mb, 2mb, and 4mb cache at the same clock.. the 4mb cache got clearly better performance in some programs. Some games got up to 20 more fps on average (up to 10%).

So is the 12mb cache overkill? or is it really twice as good cache performance as the 6mb cache of the q9300? I know Intel likes to raise the cache as another reason to raise the price.. regardless if the performance is any better.

I am a pretty Hardcore Gamer.. My Budget it Very Tight. I already have the Asus P5Q Pro, GTX 260, 700W PSU, 500GB Seagate, and 4GB of DDR2 on order.

I want the Q9550 but i will have to wait a while to get the money, however i can order the Q9300 Now.

To Sum it up:
What should i do? How much does the Cache improve it? How much better Overclocker is the Q9550 with 8.5x multi?

[Remeniz]

Ok.

I use a lot of DAW, Digital Audio Workstation, software and for that reason I would go for the Q9550 with it's 2833MHz running Fq compared to the Q9300's 2500MHz running Fq.

But, and this is very important for Audio/Video editing machines, the Q9550 with double the cache makes it the winner here. Although I don't know if double the cache, compared to the Q9300, will improve gaming performance.

For me, Q9550 FTW!

[mtotho]

Originally Posted by Remeniz

Ok.

I use a lot of DAW, Digital Audio Workstation, software and for that reason I would go for the Q9550 with it's 2833MHz running Fq compared to the Q9300's 2500MHz running Fq.

But, and this is very important for Audio/Video editing machines, the Q9550 with double the cache makes it the winner here. Although I don't know if double the cache, compared to the Q9300, will improve gaming performance.

For me, Q9550 FTW!

thanks for the reply.. I did some research.. turns out the cache makes almost no difference on high res monitors in gaming.. However, q9300 i heard sucks at Ocing, 3.2ghz at best.. while the q9550 gets like 3.8ghz easy. Tough decision.

[Remeniz]

Originally Posted by mtotho

thanks for the reply.. I did some research.. turns out the cache makes almost no difference on high res monitors in gaming.. However, q9300 i heard sucks at Ocing, 3.2ghz at best.. while the q9550 gets like 3.8ghz easy. Tough decision.

Mmm...

So it's pretty much down to the OC'abilty of the chips and if you intend to OC, it has to be the Q9550.

[jackofdiamonds]

Is there a huge difference in performance between the Q6600 and the Q9550?

[j03]

The Q9550 == QX9550, right?

[worshipme]

The Q9550 == QX9550, right?

QX9550 has an unlocked multiplier, otherwise, yes.