Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-03-2009, 03:34 PM   #1
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 164
Default Q9550 Versus Q9300

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?
__________________

mtotho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2009, 03:44 PM   #2
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 3,390
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

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!

__________________

__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad T410 - i7 620M - 8GB RAM - Crucial M4 120GB SSD - 250GB 2nd drive - Intel HD 3000 GPU - 1440x900 - Windows 7/8
REMENIZ Computers
Remeniz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2009, 07:02 PM   #3
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 164
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

Quote:
Originally Posted by Remeniz View Post
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.
mtotho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2009, 07:10 PM   #4
Fully Optimized
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 3,390
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtotho View Post
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.
__________________
Lenovo ThinkPad T410 - i7 620M - 8GB RAM - Crucial M4 120GB SSD - 250GB 2nd drive - Intel HD 3000 GPU - 1440x900 - Windows 7/8
REMENIZ Computers
Remeniz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 04:31 PM   #5
Beta Member
 
jackofdiamonds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Send a message via AIM to jackofdiamonds
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

Is there a huge difference in performance between the Q6600 and the Q9550?
jackofdiamonds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 05:00 PM   #6
j03
~~~~~~~~
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 5,556
Send a message via MSN to j03
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

The Q9550 == QX9550, right?
j03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 05:25 PM   #7
Golden Master
 
worshipme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,603
Default Re: Q9550 Versus Q9300

Quote:
The Q9550 == QX9550, right?
QX9550 has an unlocked multiplier, otherwise, yes.
__________________

__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE @ 4.0GHz + TU120E lapped - MSI 770-CD45 AM3 - 2x2GB OCZ DDR3 1333MHz - Sapphire HD 4870 - Samsung Spinpoint 500GB 7200RPM 16MB cache HDD - Tagan TG600-BZ Piperock - (Currently open test bed) - Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit.
worshipme is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0