# Is the Q9650 @ 4Ghz still a powerful cpu?



## Q9650 (Aug 5, 2011)

I have my Q9650 OC`ed to 4ghz 24/7 and still to date i find it pretty bad ass cpu for all my needs like extreme gaming (like crysis 2 at ultra settings), video editing, benchmarking and bit of everything!

what`s your opinion! discuss please....


----------



## trickson (Aug 5, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> I have my Q9650 OC`ed to 4ghz 24/7 and still to date i find it pretty bad ass cpu for all my needs like extreme gaming (like crysis 2 at ultra settings), video editing, benchmarking and bit of everything!
> 
> what`s your opinion! discuss please....



Same here . I have had mine for a couple of years now (3) and it is still smokin fast . I see no reason other than my E-peen to get another build going . Plus the fact that I am broke and the jobs are not there for 3 years now still looking . I love my Q9650 and at 4.0GHz it is just hard to think that I need a faster new chip at this time that is .


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2011)

yes. my q9650 smokes fat joints still compared to a lot of those new i5 procs. no reason to upgrade unless you have a small penis


----------



## erocker (Aug 5, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> I have my Q9650 OC`ed to 4ghz 24/7 and still to date i find it pretty bad ass cpu for all my needs like extreme gaming (like crysis 2 at ultra settings), video editing, benchmarking and bit of everything!



Sooo.. the answer is yes then?


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 5, 2011)

The Q9650 and the 2500K have about a 10-20FPS gap says anandtech bench


----------



## erocker (Aug 5, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> The Q9650 and the 2500K have about a 10-20FPS gap says anandtech bench



10-20FPS on the desktop?


----------



## arnoo1 (Aug 5, 2011)

keep it, great cpu! it's a awesome cpu now because of your 4ghz oc


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2011)

Q9650 said:


> I have my Q9650 OC`ed to 4ghz 24/7 and still to date i find it pretty bad ass cpu for all my needs like extreme gaming (like crysis 2 at ultra settings), video editing, benchmarking and bit of everything!
> 
> what`s your opinion! discuss please....



Yeah, even though an i5-2500K will smoke it, it's still pretty potent.

Look, I've got an E8500 at 4.11GHz which is half of yours and it's still blisteringly fast at everything. Pair it up with a GTX 580 and it blasts through all the latest games. 

Of course, it doesn't stop me from wanting to upgrade it to the latest tech.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 5, 2011)

erocker said:


> 10-20FPS on the desktop?



Gaming. sorry should have posted that.



qubit said:


> Yeah, even though an i5-2500K will smoke it, it's still pretty potent.
> 
> Look, I've got an E8500 at 4.11GHz which is half of yours and it's still blisteringly fast at everything. Pair it up with a GTX 580 and it blasts through all the latest games.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't stop me from wanting to upgrade it to the latest tech.



I wouldn't say smoke but yes it does beat it but maybe like 10-15%


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 5, 2011)

Have a look.


----------



## Q9650 (Aug 5, 2011)

So the Q9650 is still leaving users like me from jumping to latest intel cpu tech.

yeah i love my q9650 especially my mobo (see sig)


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> I wouldn't say smoke but yes it does beat it but maybe like 10-15%



Is that it?  I'm sure I've seen benchies ages ago where it was much faster. And they overclock to 5GHz on the stock cooler too, which will give them a serious edge.

Perhaps I've forgotten the benchies now.  I'm going out now, so I'll look it up later.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 5, 2011)

Like Erocker said, if you're happy with it, then yes it is.  I've got an E8600 @ 4.2 Ghz and it chews up everything I throw at it.  It's the longest I've been on the same platform (like... Ever! going past 3 years).  I'm usually finding myself upgrading every 1 - 2 yrs max.

This coming winter, I may upgrade depending on what Intel pulls out with Ivy Bridge.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 5, 2011)

I had a X3370 which is the Xeon equivalent of the Q9650, and to be honest I would still have it if it wasn't for the fact that I could sell it for the cost of my current Motherboard and CPU and still have enough left for some McDonalds!  And hell, the X3220(Q6600)@3.6GHz that I had before the X3370 would still chew through everything pretty easily.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Aug 5, 2011)

qubit said:


> Is that it?  I'm sure I've seen benchies ages ago where it was much faster. And they overclock to 5GHz on the stock cooler too, which will give them a serious edge.
> 
> Perhaps I've forgotten the benchies now.  I'm going out now, so I'll look it up later.





EastCoasthandle said:


> Have a look.



Yes check out ECH's thread above. the benches are good and he shows they are not too far apart. the Q9650 is still a great chip.


----------



## qubit (Aug 5, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yes check out ECH's thread above. the benches are good and he shows they are not too far apart. the Q9650 is still a great chip.



Will do. Now I must post one more thread and dash out!


----------



## Q9650 (Aug 5, 2011)

thanks guys for your comments  Q9650 is still a winner cpu


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 5, 2011)

let us know when you decide to upgrade, Q9650, and we can change your username again


----------



## Q9650 (Aug 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> let us know when you decide to upgrade, Q9650, and we can change your username again



nice one man! hehehe


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Aug 5, 2011)

well, the first thing you need to check, is that at the same speed, what is the difference.. the Q9650 is a 3ghz CPU. In Most of the benchmark, the i7 920 is better and on some other (small amount of benchmark), they are close (i7 920 in front).

so, if a SB 2500k is way better than a i7 920 (it's still better than an i7 950, and in some test better than an i7 975) the Q9650@ 4ghz would have the same performance as the i5 2500k, or maybe less.. but a BIG point to have a SB, is that it has way better consumption, and doesn'T heat like the Core 2 Quad 

for games: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

Q9650@ 4ghz is still a good CPU, event at 3ghz.. it is better than my x4 635@ 3.36ghz which gives me poor performance in some games


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 5, 2011)

Definitely still a winner. Still rockin' a Q9550 here, and I'm still loving it. Might go for a 2600k after the next series of cpus come out and prices drop.

Awesome board by the way.


----------



## Q9650 (Aug 5, 2011)

Spaceman Spiff said:


> Awesome board by the way.



thanks man!  i adore my ud3p!


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Aug 5, 2011)

my Q9450 @ 3ghz is still doing fine in just about evrything  just need to upgrade the 4850s and i will be very happy


----------



## 20mmrain (Aug 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> yes. my q9650 smokes fat joints still compared to a lot of those new i5 procs. no reason to upgrade unless you have a small penis



What are you tryin to say.....and my next question is how did you know  <---- i7 2600K here

But yes the Q9550 and the Q9650 are both still very respectable and very fast..... The more I think about it.... see what Ivy bridges brings.... and decide then. Until then .... worry about video cards more. Upgrades on those always bring more results anyways.


----------



## Sinzia (Aug 5, 2011)

if game = playable then current > upgrade
if game = unplayable then current < upgrade

Words to live by.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 5, 2011)

Sinzia said:


> if game = playable then current > upgrade
> if game = unplayable then current < upgrade
> 
> Words to live by.



True dat.  Also consider graphics card if that might be the bottleneck (specifically for games).


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 5, 2011)

As another 4GHZ Q9650/UD3P combo owner, I can't justify a CPU upgrade at this time. I paid $275 for my Q9650 like two years ago, and I'm still very happy with it's performance.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Aug 5, 2011)

I enjoy my q9550 @ 3.4ghz. Can push 4ghz but ive got an i7 in the cupboard 4 that.


----------



## xkm1948 (Aug 8, 2011)

Upgraded from a Q6600 to QX9650 a few weeks ago. Dont wanna change to the new sandy serires since I dont have that much money to switch out all the stuff: mobo, power unit, cpu, mem and etc.

Spent 200 bucks on the QX9650, overclocked it to 4GHz now. Running it 24x7 no problem on my maximus formula with 8GB mem. It is not the fastest, but it is stable and reliable. That is all I need right now.  It is a good CPU. I say keep it until Windows 8~


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 8, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yes check out ECH's thread above. the benches are good and he shows they are not too far apart. the Q9650 is still a great chip.



Bring that chip outside of some canned benchmarks and you'll see the difference grow. I've seen bigger gains between i5 760 and i5 2500k in real world gaming than between the same cpu in that comparison (2500k) and an older cpu than the 760(Q9650). Here are a few real world benchmarks.


Like I said bring it outside of well optimized canned benchmarks and you'll see the difference between the two processors grow. There are a few games that I have played where even with a single GTX570 I am cpu limited with an overclocked 2500k, especially with 3d vision. Borderlands, Drakensang, Serious Sam HD, FO3, FONV, Oblivion, and GTA4 come to mind. Those are just a few that I have personally tried.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 8, 2011)

went from a Q9550@3.9Ghz to a 2500k@4.9Ghz. Personally. I noticed a great difference in ALL areas. especially gaming.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Aug 9, 2011)

I will be keeping mine until LGA 2011 comes out.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Aug 9, 2011)

I still have mine...Forsale!  If I were you I'd sell it off while it still holds value. Then jump on a sandy platform with an overclocked 2500k. Then ditch the 2500k for the ivy when it comes out. That will keep you fairly up to date (and faster) for awhile with the least expense.

$.02


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Aug 9, 2011)

Lazzer408 said:


> I still have mine...Forsale!  If I were you I'd sell it off while it still holds value. Then jump on a sandy platform with an overclocked 2500k. Then ditch the 2500k for the ivy when it comes out. That will keep you fairly up to date (and faster) for awhile with the least expense.
> 
> $.02



Thought about doing that, still debating though.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Aug 9, 2011)

If your only running that qx at 3.3 you'll get a nice surprise once your running 4.5 on a sandy. I forgot to mention my i7 960 inbetween my qx9650 and 2600 builds. Also forsale.
I will say this about the QX9650. It has more cache and I swear something just felt faster about that chip when I had like 50 things going on at once. Having been a gamer for so many years I think some 6th sense is kicking in. I feel latency.


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 9, 2011)

same mine still kick asses


----------



## trickson (Aug 9, 2011)

I gotta say I do love mine but if I could I would upgrade . I like the new Intel chips but I just can not afford to upgrade at all . Sucks too . I sure would like to get my hands on one of then 2500k i7's man they are Sweet !


----------



## Lazzer408 (Aug 10, 2011)

The QX9650s go for $200~250 on ebay. 2500k is about that. You break even. Can't say the same for the mobo and ram though.


----------



## Frizz (Aug 10, 2011)

Best route to take in terms of gaming would be to upgrade according to what GPU setup you have or want and I am sure the Q9650 is still able to handle dual 6xxx/gtx5xx cards.


----------



## trickson (Aug 10, 2011)

Till I can really upgrade to tri SLI or even tri fire I think I will just stick with the Q650 sold fast reliable it is just Awesome . I have been very pleased with this CPU for 3 years now .


----------



## Evolved (Aug 10, 2011)

my Core 2 Duo E8400 oc'ed to 4.05Ghz is still keeping me from upgrading 
very tempting, but I really don't think I need a quad... AT ALL!

unless I decide to stream my gaming online more often than not.

I think all I need to do is upgrade to a 6870 and get ax750, and im good to go FOREVER!

i might consider getting a corsair h80 and just focus on more and better cooling.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 10, 2011)

random said:


> Best route to take in terms of gaming would be to upgrade according to what GPU setup you have or want and I am sure the Q9650 is still able to handle dual 6xxx/gtx5xx cards.



:shadedshu

Like I said there are a few games where I'm cpu limited on a much more powerful cpu with a single GTX570. I have showed real world benchmarks where a higher end cpu makes quite the difference. Can a Q9650 handle those cards? Sure, but it wont be an optimal experience and when you are already spending that kind of money why not upgrade your cpu? I would rather take a i5 2500k over a second 6950 or GTX570. Heck, I would rather buy a GTX560ti and cpu upgrade like a used lynnfield over a GTX570 on 775. 

People seem to underestimate the importance of a good cpu for gaming. Most people don't know how to benchmark cpus properly and Anandtech is one of the worst offenders.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 10, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Yes check out ECH's thread above. the benches are good and he shows they are not too far apart. the Q9650 is still a great chip.



if by not too far apart you mean pretty far apart then yes. lol remember the 9650 is overclocked whereas the i7 2600k is at stock in his thread. Even so some of the differences get up to 20%. In a stock to stock comparison it would be much higher. 

the q9650 is still a respectible cpu, but it won't compare to SB even overclocked to its max. And remember SB is a hell of a clocker. 

the q9650 will of course fare much better against 1156 cpu's and 1366 cpu's. but against the i5- 2500k and the the i7- 2600k, it's not even close. 


my q6700 @ 4GHZ still couldn't match my i7 950 @ stock in most games. but it was much closer than ECH's q9650 was to his i7 2600k. (might just have something to do with his 2600k beating my i7 950 pretty soundly, call me crazy)


if you're not having an issue with games though don't worry about it, but also don't think that the new stuff isn't much better. It is, it's just not needed.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 10, 2011)

Just for grins, there is a QX9775 with 12MB L2 cache and 1600MHz FSB. Even found on one ebay currently for $150:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-2-Ex...843?pt=CPUs&hash=item20bbd5979b#ht_667wt_1346


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 10, 2011)

thanks to this CPU, i was able to jump over socket 1366/1156/1155 with overclocking this CPU has allowed me to play all the games with the maximum performance and i will take socket 2011... Oh remember my motherbard is socket 775 the first Rampage Extreme x48 chipset with ICH8...


----------



## Champ (Aug 10, 2011)

that is still a very expensive chip now in my eyes.  How much was it when it dropped?


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 10, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Just for grins, there is a QX9775 with 12MB L2 cache and 1600MHz FSB. Even found on one ebay currently for $150:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Core-2-Ex...843?pt=CPUs&hash=item20bbd5979b#ht_667wt_1346


That's great, now go find a s771 board.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 10, 2011)

4GB ram
quad at 4Ghz
GTX 460

crysis 2 on ultra?


----------



## Jetster (Aug 10, 2011)

The question for me is would an upgrade to a Q9650 be a viable option. Ive seen them go for $210 - $230 used. I still have DDR2 ram so going to a new board, 2500K and ram would be about $400


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 10, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> That's great, now go find a s771 board.



Hell

/facepalm

sorry, should have looked at that.


----------



## _JP_ (Aug 10, 2011)

Eheh, no problem. But, IIRC, there was a s775 version as well, with the same specs. Must be even rarer and twice the price.


----------



## Flibolito (Aug 10, 2011)

I own a Q9550 and a i7920, both are @4GHz and hyperthreading is on for the i7. In some games there is no difference. But in games like BF:BC2 the i7 destroys the Q9550. Graphically they are very close within 1 FPS of each-other in stone giant which hardly pulls CPU. In Bad Company 2 it can only load the 580 to about 70% avg and it runs about 20-35fps less than the main rig. This is at 1920X1080 32xCSAA and everything else as high as it goes. This is a huge difference considering SB can push even harder and BF3 will make use of a lot of CPU power. Now the question is, this is only noticeable with fraps on and V-sync off. Both systems are perfectly smooth so in my opinion the q9550 when overclocked still does a good job and is worth hanging onto till at least next year, mind you that is on single GPU setup. For SLI or crossfire setups a Q9550 is quickly falling behind since the GPUs are very strong today and love to be fed by a strong CPU. So for a good strong mid+ range gaming system it's still enough not to warrant an upgrade. If one seeks the absolute best gaming experience in games like BF3 and so on a 2500k or a 1366 setup will do a much better job in top games especially with multi GPU setups.

Starcraft 2 is also one where the i7 is a good chunk ahead. This is all for gaming, for regular everyday use even a mildly overclocked Q9550 will get the job done, in that case a good SSD will make the system feel like a million bucks again.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 10, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> Eheh, no problem. But, IIRC, there was a s775 version as well, with the same specs. Must be even rarer and twice the price.



QX9770 is what you're looking for.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 10, 2011)

Thanks, posted before reading entirely.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Aug 10, 2011)

random said:


> Best route to take in terms of gaming would be to upgrade according to what GPU setup you have or want and I am sure the Q9650 is still able to handle dual 6xxx/gtx5xx cards.



I would put my Q9650 and my GTX 470 up against my i7 any day of the week, it may lag behind by a dozen or so FPS, but it's also about 2 years older, pretty beefy IMO.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 10, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I would put my Q9650 and my GTX 470 up against my i7 any day of the week, it may lag behind by a dozen or so FPS, but it's also about 2 years older, pretty beefy IMO.



Yeah, but compared to an i5 2500k your i7 may lag behind by another dozen fps or so in certain titles.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Aug 10, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Yeah, but compared to an i5 2500k your i7 may lag behind by another dozen fps or so in certain titles.



No I think they would be pretty even if not my i7 being a little faster.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> No I think they would be pretty even if not my i7 being a little faster.





Yeah, ok.

This is what I mean when I say that there are no good cpu oriented gaming benchmarks with Sandy. Fyi your cpu isn't any faster clock for clock than the i5 760 in the benchmarks that I posted in real world gaming against an i5 2500k but think what you will.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Yeah, ok.
> 
> This is what I mean when I say that there are no good cpu oriented gaming benchmarks with Sandy. Fyi your cpu isn't any faster clock for clock than the i5 760 in the benchmarks that I posted in real world gaming against an i5 2500k but think what you will.



actually you are both relatively close to the truth. Allow me to school some pissing match.


His i7 can out pace your 760. why? because while they might not be any better or worse clock for clock which is TRUE btw. The memory management system on I7 rigs is superior for bandwidth and theirfor allows more data calculation to be done. Not to mention the amount of cache on the I7 chips themselves unless against the higher end I5's is usually more and faster at that.

That DOES however go the same vs SB. a sandybridge chip clocked even with HT off can take any I7 machine. HOWEVER. an I7 will outpace SB i the I7 has more cores or the SB isnt using all cores. SB does have some benefits to I7 most of which is memory management, and clockability. Which doesnt sound like much but for example. you have 

I7 950 4.2ghz You will outpace 
I5 2500k stock

you WILL be outpaced
I7 950 4.2ghz
I5 2500k 4.2Ghz

Not to mention that the I7 chip will reach its threshhold before the SB platform he will be able to go higher and more stable and will cap out far after you. SB is a platform that if done righ cannot be kept up with if you know what your doing.

class dismissed.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. In fact I can't think of any typical desktop applications that are. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e controller on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.

You may want to take another class yourself (check a lynnfield review). Most of what you said makes little sense btw.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.
> 
> I'm not sure how you can do math with no numbers. That must be George W.'s new math.



your just upset at that fact that you are partially wrong. I honestly dont want to waste the time if you dont have any intention on trying to understand it. Im actually not even sure why you would expect to see math in my posts. If you knew anything about the architecture of the CPU's and their corresponding components like MC,NB,QPI then you would understand that while the performance gain may be negligable at stock speed with any amount of tweaking the newest platform does infact pull ahead. I have owned each of these platforms and i can tell you that it is true.

it goes alot like this

I5>I7>SB
I7(stock)>I5(clocked)>=/=SB
=/=SB>I5(clocked)>I7(clocked)
I5(Clocked)>I7(clocked)>SB(clocked)
slow<=========================>fast​


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

Even my e8200 at 3.9ghz and DDR3 ram is powerful enough. Only a handful of things that need more than 2 cores would truly need more. A 4ghz q9650 should be able to handle anything out there.


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Gaming is not very bandwidth intensive. In fact I can't think of any typical desktop applications that are. Check any memory oriented comparison. FYI, Lynnfield tends to have a lower memory latency it also has the pci-e controller on die which brings down the latency on that as well. Although I seriously doubt that any of that makes a much of a difference with gaming, if at all.
> 
> You may want to take another class yourself (check a lynnfield review). Most of what you said makes little sense btw.



I picked up a considerable amount of performance going from DDR2 to DDR3 on this processor, so I don't know that I agree with you.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

Solaris17 said:


> your just upset at that fact that you are partially wrong. I honestly dont want to waste the time if you dont have any intention on trying to understand it. Im actually not even sure why you would expect to see math in my posts. If you knew anything about the architecture of the CPU's and their corresponding components like MC,NB,QPI then you would understand that while the performance gain may be negligable at stock speed with any amount of tweaking the newest platform does infact pull ahead. I have owned each of these platforms and i can tell you that it is true.
> 
> it goes alot like this
> 
> ...



Do you understand what the difference between lynnfield and bloomfield is? Do you know what the difference between a core i5 and a core i7 is? Seriously, check a review. Post a link, something. I have owned an i7 860 and an i5 760 and an i5 2500k for that matter and posted benchmarks. Believe it or not the 760 was faster than the 860 in gaming, mostly because it clocked better. I'm speaking from first hand experience. 

I haven't owned a bloomfield but in most benchmarks that I have seen Lynnfield performs a little better but the difference probably isn't noticeable. Dude do a little research before trying to be arrogant.



jpierce55 said:


> I picked up a considerable amount of performance going from DDR2 to DDR3 on this processor, so I don't know that I agree with you.




Placebo effect? What else changed? I'm sorry but in all of the X48 benchmarks that I have seen that just isn't the case. 

Either way we are talking about a completely different architecture. Just having the memory controller built onto the cpu caused a massive difference in bandwith. Its not all about the memory itself.


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 11, 2011)

Solaris17 said:


> 4GB ram
> quad at 4Ghz
> GTX 460
> 
> ...


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Placebo effect? What else changed? I'm sorry but in all of the X48 benchmarks that I have seen that just isn't the case.
> 
> Either way we are talking about a completely different architecture. Just having the memory controller built onto the cpu caused a massive difference in bandwith. Its not all about the memory itself.



How about no placebo effect, and I am talking FPS in actual games measure by FRAPS not benchmarks..... though benchmarks increased as well.


----------



## LagunaX (Aug 11, 2011)

Out of curiosity I ran the Anandtech cpu vs. cpu benchmarks.

It was kinda scary in the stock q9650 vs. lowly i3-2100 benchmarks.

Then I ran the q9650 vs. 2500k.

Looking at just the gaming it seemed like a 10-15% difference for the most part at stock.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=49

However for a comfortable overclock the q9650 will go from 3ghz to 4.0ghz while the 2500k will go from 3.3ghz to 4.8ghz - a 0.5ghz more overclock on more efficient architecture, and not even saying that the 1ghz overclock would be equal scaling either.

That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu. 

I love my Sandy Bridge at 4.8ghz but i still like my old e8500 @ 4.5ghz...


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu.



And that statement, of course, is absolutely correct.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

Thats what I don't like about Anandtech benchmarks. Fallout 3 on medium settings at 1680x1050 on a GTX580? Turning up the settings on any Gamebyro game is going to effect the cpu load. Gamebyro is notoriously cpu limited. I saw a bigger difference at 1920x1200 maxed out with a GTX570 between a 760 and 2500k than they did between the 2500k and q9650 with those ridiculous settings.

Far Cry 2 is another one at medium settings.

I'm just not fond of Anand's cpu comparisons.



jpierce55 said:


> And that statement, of course, is absolutely correct.



With todays video cards like a GTX570 or 6950 true at all.


----------



## Frizz (Aug 11, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> That being said, outside of a major cpu bottleneck the majority of the performance in gaming does rest with the gpu.



This is what I meant, in terms of gaming I don't really think the CPU matters as long as it is not bottlenecking any performance from the GPU and unless the games you like to play depend alot on the CPU eg. WoW or the other Blizzard games.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Aug 11, 2011)

I think in gaming alot of games run on different cpu-gpu ratios.

I know metro doesnt matter what cpu u have(to a certain extent). 

This is because i was running one of my 6950s with a q9550 @ 2.0ghz then put it(6950) in my i7 @ 4.2ghz and there was no difference in frames.


----------



## Yukikaze (Aug 11, 2011)

Yes.

/thread.


----------



## Jetster (Aug 11, 2011)

So my interpretation of this thread for me is that upgrading to a Q9650 is a viable option for around $200. Or buy a new MB CPU and Mem? 
Ive been pondering this issue for some time now


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

A Q9650 is beaten by the 2500k, no point in even trying the argue about that. But, the Q9650 still has plenty of power for todays games. For someone with a socket 775 rig, spending $200 for a used q9650 over buying a new 2500k/1155 motherboard/ddr3 RAM compatable with SB is a viable option. Also, the Q9650 still beats anything AMD has out, which will probably change once BD is released.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 11, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Also, the Q9650 still beats anything AMD has out,



shadedshu I find that hard to believe.....


----------



## Mindweaver (Aug 11, 2011)

Master Q9650, not victory. The shroud of the 2500k has fallen. Begun, the CPU War has!


----------



## Melvis (Aug 11, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> shadedshu I find that hard to believe.....



He his still in denial that his more expensive P4 got beat by a cheaper Athlon back in the day lol

Yea i agree, he is dreamin.


----------



## Altered (Aug 11, 2011)

Jetster said:


> So my interpretation of this thread for me is that upgrading to a Q9650 is a viable option for around $200. Or buy a new MB CPU and Mem?
> Ive been pondering this issue for some time now



I think it all goes back to how deep you want to stay invested in that era of technology. $200 can be a lot of money when you consider the amount you already have invested in the aging system. Not that it isnt capable but how much longer will it suffice you for another $200. If you figure you can live with it another two yrs thats a $100 a year and will you be happy with what you have during that time? Believe me I am with you on the cost of change. Add the cost of water blocks for the VGA to mine.  But I am ready to do this I like the new features coming and wont be trying to get rid of 2 old chips for 1/8 of what I paid for them. Ill just have one to get rid of.  Just wish we had some concrete on BD before I cant wait and get an i5. 

On a totally off topic note - I went ahead and ordered my 6950 this morning!  Boy I hope I get extra shaders in this crapshoot.


----------



## mlee49 (Aug 11, 2011)

Just FYI, I was waiting on baited breath over a QX9770 on eBay that sold last night for $305.  Still quite expensive, but damn near the best 775 chip you can buy.

Just pricing fyi.


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Aug 11, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Like Erocker said, if you're happy with it, then yes it is.  I've got an E8600 @ 4.2 Ghz and it chews up everything I throw at it.  It's the longest I've been on the same platform (like... Ever! going past 3 years).  I'm usually finding myself upgrading every 1 - 2 yrs max.
> 
> This coming winter, I may upgrade depending on what Intel pulls out with Ivy Bridge.



Does staying in a platform because I am poor count?  I have been using LGA775 for 5 years now.  I knew the jig was up when the processor limited dead space with a GTX 380.  Have only been playing new games on the xbox since then


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 11, 2011)

Considering I use Phenom II X4s (which everyone s**ts on for sucking compared to Intel) and don't run into any CPU usage problems with any game I own with an AMD HD 5770, your 9650 should do you well for quite a while longer. Team Fortress 2 (which I think is probably the biggest CPU rapist in my game library) stays at 60 FPS for me (VSYNC) on an X4 @ 3.6 (and even my original Phenom X4 does well at 2.75). Your Q9650 would probably get higher min/max framerates with the same video card, but both CPUs are still decent nonetheless.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 11, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> Does staying in a platform because I am poor count?  I have been using LGA775 for 5 years now.  I knew the jig was up when the processor limited dead space with a GTX 380.  Have only been playing new games on the xbox since then



Well, a Q9650 is a lot faster than a Pentium D, for sure. It's similar to how the socket 939 Athlon X2 processors were a lot better than their single core counterparts, but 775 saw a ton of performance increases. 

LGA 775 was a socket with quite a long life, and the last CPUs made for it are vastly superior to the CPUs that came out with the socket. Now, Intel seems to like to change sockets quite quickly, which isn't bad for 1366 which had a 3 year life (gets replaced by 2011 at the end of the year) but 1156 got the shaft with just a year long lifespan.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Aug 11, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> ... the processor limited dead space with a GTX 380.



Wait, what? A GTX 380 doesn't exist, d'you mean a 480?


----------



## trickson (Aug 11, 2011)

I do not want to get into any war here . But with my set up I can run crysis just fine one the highest settings they have . Both of them . As long as I can do this I find that this CPU is still way bad ass .


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> shadedshu I find that hard to believe.....



Thats because there are a lot of assumptions in this thread that aren't based in reality. There are a lot of claims that people cant back up with a single link. Here is one that shows how a Q9650 performs against Intel's last gen cpus, never mind a sandy. Keep in mind when looking at those benchmarks that i5 750 runs at 2.6ghz and will overclock to around where a Q9650 will. 

Q9650 was a great cpu for its time but you would have to be delusional to think that it performs anywhere near where Intel's recent cpus perform.



BarbaricSoul said:


> For someone with a socket 775 rig, spending $200 for a used q9650 over buying a new 2500k/1155 motherboard/ddr3 RAM compatable with SB is a viable option.



Its not a viable option at all when a used i5 760, P55 board, and new 8GB DDR3 kit can be had for not much more and will wipe the floor with any Yorkfield.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Thats because there are a lot of assumptions in this thread that aren't based in reality. There are a lot of claims that people cant back up with a single link. Here is one that shows how a Q9650 performs against Intel's last gen cpus, never mind a sandy. Keep in mind when looking at those benchmarks that i5 750 runs at 2.6ghz and will overclock to around where a Q9650 will.
> 
> Q9650 was a great cpu for its time but you would have to be delusional to think that it performs anywhere near where Intel's recent cpus perform.
> 
> ...



umm that review has 2 benches one of which the phenom II 965 beats the q9650 by a fair amount, the other where the q9650 just edges out the phenom II 965.


if you use say the 1090 instead, you see that amd is able to beat 775 now. 

it's 1156, 1366, and 1155 they can't seem to come close to.

http://www.hardwareoverclock.com/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1090T_Black_Edition-7.htm
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/...om/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1090T_Black_Edition-5.htm


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

Also that review is using DDR2 on the Q9650 vs DDR3 on the i5. There are many Socket 775 mobo's capable of running DDR3 and if the Q9650 was on a DDR3 mobo (x48) it would be beating that i5.

Even if socket 775 is EOL, the Q9650 is still a great performer and more than capable of running the latest modern games. My HTPC is a 4.0Ghz q9650, 6gb ddr2, and a gtx285. It playes Dirt 3, Batman, and Grid at max details 1920x1080.


----------



## Jetster (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> My HTPC is a 4.0Ghz q9650, 6gb ddr2, and a gtx285. It playes Dirt 3, Batman, and Grid at max details 1920x1080.



Your HTPC is Bad Ass


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Also that review is using DDR2 on the Q9650 vs DDR3 on the i5. There are many Socket 775 mobo's capable of running DDR3 and if the Q9650 was on a DDR3 mobo (x48) it would be beating that i5.



:shadedshu

Look, when you make claims like that you really should provide some benchmarks to back that up. The difference between DDR2 and DDR3 on X48 is minimal. Check some comparisons. 

The reason that Nehalem has so much more memory bandwith is that the memory controller is built into the cpu, not what memory it uses. Secondly most desktop apps, especially gaming, aren't very memory intensive.



yogurt_21 said:


> umm that review has 2 benches one of which the phenom II 965 beats the q9650 by a fair amount, the other where the q9650 just edges out the phenom II 965.
> 
> 
> if you use say the 1090 instead, you see that amd is able to beat 775 now.
> ...



Its a different architecture. There are certain apps where a 965 will edge out something like an i7 860.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> :shadedshu
> 
> Look, when you make claims like that you really should provide some benchmarks to back that up. The difference between DDR2 and DDR3 on X48 is minimal. Check some comparisons.



Yes, minimal... Like the difference between the i5 and the q9650 in that chart.

Do I really need to provide benchmarks to you or does common sense dictate that with DDR3 the gain, even though minimal, would be enough to place it above the i5, which just barely beat it. :shadedshu

Check out the 3dMark Vantage thread on TPU = Plenty of proof there. Many Q9650 and QX9770's beating the i5 750.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110050 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=109

Which honestly answers the question of this entire thread. Is the Q9650 still a good and worth while chip. Yes!!


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Aug 11, 2011)

I love my Q9550 just wish I could hit 4GHz.

:/


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> shadedshu I find that hard to believe.....



super PI run anyone with a AMD cpu?


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Yes, minimal... Like the difference between the i5 and the q9650 in that chart.



Which chart? The one with i5 750 pumping a 20% higher framerate in Anno? The one with the 750 pumping a 35% higher framerate in GTA4? 

If thats minimal, I'm not sure what to say. I've yet to see a memory comparison on 775, 1156, 1155, or 1366 where memory speed made more than a couple of an fps difference with gaming. 



> Do I really need to provide benchmarks



Yes, yes, you do and until you can dig up some evidence to support you claims outside of a forum dedicated to a synthetic benchmark you have no credibility. I'm talking real world testing. 

Here is a good start

Why do you think that boards like the UD3P and P5Q Deluxe were so popular? I remember a time where the Tpower i45 ruled the super pi charts at HWbot. 



BarbaricSoul said:


> super PI run anyone with a AMD cpu?



Which real world application is super pi supposed to represent?


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

Jetster said:


> So my interpretation of this thread for me is that upgrading to a Q9650 is a viable option for around $200. Or buy a new MB CPU and Mem?
> Ive been pondering this issue for some time now



I would say no, you would be better off selling what you have and buying new stuff at $200. Maybe if you could get something used for $150 or less it might be worth it.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Which chart? The one with i5 750 pumping a 20% higher framerate in Anno? The one with the 750 pumping a 35% higher framerate in GTA4?
> 
> If thats minimal, I'm not sure what to say. I've yet to see a memory comparison on 775, 1156, 1155, or 1366 where memory speed made more than a couple of an fps difference with gaming.




Also I think the synthetics are good enough. If anything, in games, it will be even less of a gap. Besides the thread isn't about your i5 750, it was asking if the q9650 is good enough. Which it is.

You can nit pick all you want about benchmarks and 18% better...blah blah. Fact is the Q9650 is still a great chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/50
Above is a bench with a q9650 w/ddr3 and a i5 750.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Which real world application is super pi supposed to represent?



Uh, how about crunching and doing mathimatical equations. You know, things computers were created for in the first place(contrary to popular belief, computers were not originally created to play games on). Tell you what, forget the superPI run. Show me a AMD quad-core cpu that has equaled my crunching score with a equal amount of run time(yes, a AMD 6 core can beat a Q9650 in applications that will use all six cores). I've built a PII 965 system with 4 gigs of the same speed RAM as I have in my Q9650 system. It's not as fast as my Q9650 in everyday use from what I saw.


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Which chart? The one with i5 750 pumping a 20% higher framerate in Anno? The one with the 750 pumping a 35% higher framerate in GTA4?
> 
> If thats minimal, I'm not sure what to say. I've yet to see a memory comparison on 775, 1156, 1155, or 1366 where memory speed made more than a couple of an fps difference with gaming.
> 
> ...



I got over 10% on benchmarks when I changed to DDR3, so DDR3 does make a big difference, of course it would depend on the board/ram in particular. My ram is running a reasonably good speed/latency. I do agree that a Q9650 does not have a chance at the newer processors..... the bigger question is what the OP asked. Is a Q9650 a 4ghz still good, and to that I say yes.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Uh, how about crunching and doing mathimatical equations. You know, things computers were created for in the first place(contrary to popular belief, computers were not originally created to play games on).



I take it that you know very little about programing and how that can effect those computations. There are certain real world apps where a 965 can go toe to toe with Nehalem. Things aren't always so black and white.

This is one of the reasons why I don't care about synthetic benchmarks. Did you know that even my i5 760 threw out about the same amount of Gflops in Linpack and my Q9650? Did that translate to what I saw in real world usage, no.



jpierce55 said:


> I do agree that a Q9650 does not have a chance at the newer processors..... the bigger question is what the OP asked. Is a Q9650 a 4ghz still good, and to that I say yes.



I agree with you but is it worth $200? No, there is even someone with a Q9650 feeding a GTX580 in this thread. The same money spent could have bought him a GTX570 and 2500k setup and given better performance.



> I got over 10% on benchmarks when I changed to DDR3, so DDR3 does make a big difference, of course it would depend on the board/ram in particular. My ram is running a reasonably good speed/latency.



Yeah, but benchmarks don't always translate to what you see in real world applications. It usually doesn't.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> I take it that you know very little about programing and how that can effect those computations. There are certain real world apps where a 965 can go toe to toe with Nehalem. Things aren't always so black and white.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I don't care about synthetic benchmarks. Did you know that even my i5 760 threw out about the same amount of Gflops in Linpack and my Q9650? Did that translate to what I saw in real world usage, no.



I never said a thing about a Q9650 being able to beat a I5 or I7 cpu. I did say the Q9650 can still get the job done.



BababooeyHTJ said:


> I agree with you but is it worth $200? No, there is even someone with a Q9650 feeding a GTX580 in this thread. The same money spent could have bought him a GTX570 and 2500k setup and given better performance.



You do realise  for me personally, I would cost me $400 to upgrade to a 2500k system. If I was still using say a q6600 or e8*00, it would be alot easier to afford a used $200 q9650 than it would be to afford a full system upgrade.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I never said a thing about a Q9650 being able to beat a I5 or I7 cpu. I did say the Q9650 can still get the job done.



No, you said this.



BarbaricSoul said:


> Also, the Q9650 still beats anything AMD has out, which will probably change once BD is released.



:shadedshu


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I never said a thing about a Q9650 being able to beat a I5 or I7 cpu. I did say the Q9650 can still get the job done.



Exactly!


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Oh I see now, just checked your specs. You're 'ing because you have a i5 and it makes you  that a Q9650 is just about as fast.
> 
> Also I think the synthetics are good enough. If anything, in games, it will be even less of a gap. Besides the thread isn't about your i5 750, it was asking if the q9650 is good enough. Which it is.
> 
> ...



First of all, I have a i5 2500k.

Second of all, I had an i7 860 that I replaced with that i5 760.

Third, I would be willing to bet that you don't know the difference between those two cpus.

Fourth, I have provided real world benchmarks that I saw while gaming on all of those cpus.

Oh, yeah I traded my Q9650 for that i7 860. 

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you don't want to do any research to help educate yourself on the subject than I'm not going to argue with you. Think what you will.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

First of all your specs say i5 760. Forgive me for not knowing the exact system you are running...

Second of all: I don't care about your upgrade process.

Third. I do.

fourth. I did.

oh yeah... I don't care.

Sounds good, you should keep quite more often.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Third. I do.



What is it? 

Why does that somehow make a Q9650 as fast as an i5 760 but not an i7 860?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by BarbaricSoul
> I never said a thing about a Q9650 being able to beat a I5 or I7 cpu. I did say the Q9650 can still get the job done.
> 
> ...



It has been the general consensus on this forum that the phenomII is just a tad slower than a high-end core2quad at equal clock speeds. It was explained to me that a PhenomII at 3.8ghz is equal to a core2quad q9*50 at 3.6ghz. This has been the general consensus I had found on this forum since the phenomII were released, and from what I have experienced myself, it's true(you know, real world experience and all).


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> No, you said this.
> 
> 
> 
> :shadedshu





BababooeyHTJ said:


> What is it?
> 
> Why does that somehow make a Q9650 as fast as an i5 760 but not an i7 860?



no one is saying that


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> It has been the general consensus on this forum that the phenomII is just a tad slower than a high-end core2quad at equal clock speeds. It was explained to me that a PhenomII at 3.8ghz is equal to a core2quad q9*50 at 3.6ghz. This has been the general consensus I had found on this forum since the phenomII were released, and from what I have experienced myself, it's true(you know, real world experience and all).



I agree with you but the difference between the two isn't as big as it may appear in superpi. AMD processors perform awfully in superpi. 



BarbaricSoul said:


> no one is saying that



He has said just that a couple of times now.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> What is it?
> 
> Why does that somehow make a Q9650 as fast as an i5 760 but not an i7 860?



Dang, you already commented. I thought you were done....

A big difference is Hyper Threading. i7 860 runs at 2.8Ghz vs 2.66ghz.

But the big difference between the Q9650 and the i5 750 is the L2 cache. Which is what helps keep the Q9650 keep up with current cpu's.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Dang, you already commented. I thought you were done....
> 
> A big difference is Hyper Threading. i7 860 runs at 2.8Ghz vs 2.66ghz.
> 
> But the big difference between the Q9650 and the i5 750 is the L2 cache. Which is what helps keep the Q9650 keep up with current cpu's.



You do know how L2 cache works, right? Each dual core in Yorkfield only has access to the same 6MB cache that Wolfdale has.

Umm, hyper-threading tends to hurt more than it helps in gaming.

More claims with no evidence don't do much to help your case.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 11, 2011)

There is no case. What are you going on about?? The Q9650 is still a great processor. You don't agree with that?

Yes I understand L2. Neither the Q9650 or the i5 750 have HT, so I don't see how that is relevant in any way.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 11, 2011)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> There is no case. What are you going on about?? The Q9650 is still a great processor. You don't agree with that?
> 
> Yes I understand L2. Neither the Q9650 or the i5 750 have HT, so I don't see how that is relevant in any way.



What are you going on about?

Its a three generations old processor. It was great for its time. Is it great compared to current processors, no.

You are going to disagree with me in some rude manner no mater what I post anyways so I'm done responding to you.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 11, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Its a three generations old processor. It was great for its time. Is it great compared to current processors, no.



But that's the thing, right now, it is great compared to AMD's top of the line CPU's. In real life applications, the best AMD can do is only match the performance of said "3 generation old" cpu. The only way AMD can *consistantly* beat or match the Q9650 is with a 6 core cpu, and then it's only in applications that can use all 6 cores.


----------



## jpierce55 (Aug 12, 2011)

I think at this point in time the op's question has thoroughly been answered !


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 12, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> What are you going on about?
> 
> Its a three generations old processor. It was great for its time. Is it great compared to current processors, no.
> 
> You are going to disagree with me in some rude manner no mater what I post anyways so I'm done responding to you.



that's fine, I don't require a response from you. maybe try to be less condescending to avoid future rudeness. regardless of what you think the q 9650 is still a good chip.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Aug 12, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> But that's the thing, right now, it is great compared to AMD's top of the line CPU's. In real life applications, the best AMD can do is only match the performance of said "3 generation old" cpu. The only way AMD can *consistantly* beat or match the Q9650 is with a 6 core cpu, and then it's only in applications that can use all 6 cores.



I agree with you. I would never consider an AMD cpu for a gaming rig.

Its just not as bad as super pi makes it look.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 12, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> But that's the thing, right now, it is great compared to AMD's top of the line CPU's. In real life applications, the best AMD can do is only match the performance of said "3 generation old" cpu. The only way AMD can *consistantly* beat or match the Q9650 is with a 6 core cpu, and then it's only in applications that can use all 6 cores.



Now you see this is where you are very very wrong. I just did a quick look to see what your saying has any proof and no it doesn't. I found that the Phenom II 940 and the Q9650 are about the same in performance. Ill give you a few links > http://www.guru3d.com/category/review/ and > http://www.google.com.au/ But it is hard to find a Core 2 Quad Vs Phenom II anywhere using the same programs and versions.

Now from your statement you say only the top end Phenoms will beat a Q9650? well going from what i found a 955BE and above will start to outperform the Q9650 and of course the clock speeds only get higher for AMD up to 3.7GHz. The X6 depending on clock speeds and the program the X6 will beat the Q9650 in more then double the benchmarks.

Super Pi?  Thats the worst benchmark to compare AMD to Intel, hell im sure a P4 would still beat a Phenom in that test


----------



## LagunaX (Aug 12, 2011)

Short of adding a SSD the only thing that can make a 9650 seem faster is lowering it, getting 20" rims, tinting the windows, adding a spoiler, and getting custom racing seats...

Sorry I couldn't help it....


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Now from your statement you say only the top end Phenoms will beat a Q9650? well going from what i found a 955BE and above will start to outperform the Q9650 and of course the clock speeds only get higher for AMD up to 3.7GHz. The X6 depending on clock speeds and the program the X6 will beat the Q9650 in more then double the benchmarks.



Did I just not say that a phenom II at 3.8 is about equal to a c2q q9*50 at 3.6?. Your 955BE is clocked 200mhz over a stock q9650, which only backs up what I said. BTW, how many 955 you heard of doing +4 ghz stable? AMD is beating the core2quads, which are officially EOL, by clocking thier CPU's higher. Intel could have done the samething, but instead moved on to I5 and I7.


Look, I'm not trying to get into some fanboy fight or anything like that. I'm not a fanboy. I go for the best performing product I can afford. Intel has been the leader for sometime now, so I choose Intel processors. If BD, when released, is shown to perform equal to but cost less than SB, or out-performs SB, I'll buy that platform(I do plan on upgrading this winter). All I'm trying to say is that for a person with a less than high-end c2q or c2d system, that can't afford a full system upgrade, a used q9650 is a viable option. The q9650 still has plenty of power for todays software, especailly when paired with a good OC'ing motherboard like the UD3P.


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 12, 2011)

In short, the Q9xxx is fine at 4ghz for what you need. On the flip side it is EOL now and going to loose value.

Those are the only ways to see it, and due to the amount of drama as of late I am going to close it.


----------

