E8600 beats out Q9550? Help quickly!!! Need to send back.

This cant be so is it? According to this benchmark http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] 0,818.html the E8600 is way better then the Q9550 that I just bought for more money.

I can only assume its because the E8600 is at 3.3Ghz and the Q9550 is at 2.83Ghz and Crysis doesn't utilize more then two cores.

So if I OC mine to 3.4Ghz which I have it at right now stable, does that mean now mine is better and would perform better on that benchmark? Please tell me it is, or please just tell me the truth quickly so i can send it back and get the E8600 instead. Hurry I only have a few days left to send it back to Newegg.

What I am trying to figure out is, is it just the Ghz that is making the difference? If it is then I guess I will keep it for the future quad games and keep it OCed to 3.4Ghz.

Please let me know right away!!!!!

1. Wow, your an idiot.

2. The quad can't do 4.0 ghz easily on stock or any voltage stable for that matter. Let alone put a fight with the 4.5 ghz below 1.4v. I don't even want to mention the 5.0+ ghz I've seen on air, that's just brutal.

3. Ironic isn't it?

Sure, I seen the q9650 do 4.6 ghz. It had watercooling and a 1.5v+ though. And for $540, I'd hope the people that bought it got something for that price.

My initial reaction is..... "Over Reaction". But that's just me. I think you're freaking out over much of nothing, personally.

It's your money. But I'd never spend that much on a single component. But that's cause I can't afford to blow that much on one component either.

Dual-Cores typically beat out Quads in games right now. Period. Cause games aren't designed well enough for multi-core CPUs yet. Crysis isn't always the absolute best benchmark either, as it stresses every system.

How big a difference you see from your e6600 to a Q9550 isn't entirely CPU related. Memory bandwidth, video card capabilities, motherboard chipset, and the software you're using play big roles in whether you can unleash the absolute abilities of that Q9550 in the first place.

All depends on what you're doing. Gaming, video editing, etc. But, right now, high clock speed dual-cores typically beat out Quads for most games. Just the way it is so far.

Give it a couple years, dual-cores will be bargain bin. Quads will be mainstream, and octo or whatever we get to will be the high end stuff. ;0

The Intel processors work pretty self explanatory in the same architecture.
Higher clock = better frames but thats only in games or any app that uses only 2 Cores.
The E8600 is at 3.33 versus ur 2.83 so yes it will perform better. If u overclock ur quad to 3.33 ull be about the same.

Also i wouldnt use that Crysis benchmark as a suitable test. For one, Crysis is limited by GPU power first before ur processor. I mean srysly, GPU is first and by the time a dual/quad matters ur already pulling off crazy frames so it doesnt matter. I mean i get 230+ fps in CoD4 usually unless theres a lot of action. But 210 or 230 its not like it matters ffs. U think u can tell the difference of that 20 frames?

And Habitat...Ive seen the Q9550 stable at 4 GHz. Most do it on water for temp reasons, but ive seen many builds with teh Q9550 at or just under 4GHz with a good air cooler

Now i kno ill be flamed here but its the truth.
Some games are moving towards quad utilization. Not soon but definitely it will happen. And when it does ur 2.83 quad will win or be around the same as a 4.5 GHz dual, but once u overclock it ull win.

ATM, the intels go by clock in games. (and architecture but were only talking about Penryn here)

A dual at 3.33 will do about the same as a quad at 3.33
The Cache helps but doesnt make an amazing difference.

The only reason id change is rly if u want to Overclock the E8600. They OC to around 4-4.5 which is out of reach of the quads.
But if u got the E8600 and left it stock there would be no difference between the stock 3.33 and the OCed Quad at 3.33

Thanks Silverion77. You ever get into Flight Sim X? Curious how your 9800GX2 with your Q9550 is doing with that game. They say FSX is a fully Quad utilizing game and needs it.

Also, I see you have made the choice of the Q9550 over the E8600. What clocks are you reaching with your CPU?

I am looking for a new GPU. What are your thoughts on the GTX 280. Should I wait and save for that or just get the GX2 at a significantly lower price?

The 12MB cache vs 6MB cache really doesn't matter with existing games. Basically, the 6MB cache in the E8600 is being used by two processors. The 12MB cache in a Q9550 is used by 4 processors, therefore two share 6MB, the other two share the other 6MB.

So if the game only uses a maximum of TWO processors, you're still only using 6MB of cache.

Silveron77 is right though. The future is Quad +. If you like to keep background tasks running (antivirus, Fraps, etc) the quad might give you a small edge there, if those apps are actually doing stuff. Not that I recommend running Antivirus scan while playing a game!! Your hard drive would limit you there.

e4300's have a overclocking cap of around 3.4ghz, that's with watercooling

that's a lie, i've seen the q9550[e0] hit 4.2 on air with a certain batch of processors... dude put up benchmarks, prime orthos and all that, he was 110% stable @ 1.35v

which also makes the purchase of the q9650 very questionable... the q9550 can pretty much OC just as high even without the addition of the .5x multi as the q9650, and w/o the guarantee of an E0 stepping

No way to tell....

Just keep OCing like u would.
Raise frequency, watch temps, and if u crash raise vCore

Not really.

Wait until you need the extra cycles for something specific. Based on your original question, I have to assume that you have limited OCing experience. You will shorten the life of the CPU at extremes, possibly to zero.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

if u have it at 3.4 just leave it

free performance whether u see it or not and its not anything extreme so ur fine

That depends, what are your Prime95 small FFT temps measured with Core Temp or Real Temp?

To the first paragraph. Not quite, if your hurting that much for more fps, you probably need all you can get. To the second paragraph, then it's not really easily stable is it? And lastly, no, I think your totally right.

LOL! WTF! It's all drawing from the same cache. Only the previous gen chips had this feature, and currently AMD I believe. Also, it will say x2 or x4 with the actually sizes split accordingly. How the hell did you come up with that? Yeah, if your using TWO processors in the quad it's still using 12 MEGS of cache.

Is that really a lie? Keyword I put in there, easily. How is that a lie? Most people can't get those speeds, are you serious? Almost every single e8600 on stock voltages can do 4.0 ghz while laughing. Google it and you'll see countless stable benchmarks. Why should people pay that much and worry about hitting 4.2 ghz, most people can't. Your evidence is misleading. Show me a site where a lot of people are hitting those speeds. In that case... For the e8600, google 5.0 ghz and 5.0+ghz after that.

LOL! he's already at 1.35v, that's fail already... What is that like 4.5 ghz for the e8600? If clock cycles don't matter, why not just sell it and get an e7300 and overclock with safe voltages? It's not like your going to see a difference right? OMG, even an e7300 can probably do better with that voltage you got pumping through that quad.

[quotemsg=1781333,28,305739]Drastically... drastic is like 10 fps... not .4 fps....

anyway whats your resolution... if its high t won't matter


yes keep the q9550



ok not drastically, but still lower frames for what should be increase by OCing right? I have my res at 1680x1050. Is my GPU bottlenecking?

Right a half a frame, let it go.

By the way, and more importantly, what are your Prime95 small FFT temps?

How many other people can hit that? Either 1. Your one of the few, good for you... or 2. Your lying and regret buying a quad.

Not everyone can hit those speeds. I still have a choice in these upcoming weeks either to upgrade to a quad or dual. Guess which one make more sense? LOL! I feel bad for you I really do.

And let's see your 3.85 ghz chip with prime 95 stable and super pi score then. Most of all go google this and don't let the facts smack you in the face. I don't need a rebuttel for facts. I did my research. Hey, good for you that you reached 3.85 ghz but ain't the person here, maybe the only idiot here, but not the only person with that chip.

And he did make a good point. Here it is to put the nail in the coffin for ya.

Anger plus embarassment equals humiliation. It's okay though, were here to learn as enthusiasts mostly.

So if no games are going to utilize it soon, an e7300 oc'ed with low voltages can compare to it for gaming, ummmm, it's overpriced, multitasking is already solved with the dual, then WTF is it good for?

He only thought he was at that moment. Now he can say he really is. LOL!

Habitat87, I know you are being sarcastic, but to a noob like me, what did you mean by "want to comment on that"? Were you saying 5 degree difference is a good thing or a bad?

No, you got it wrong, I actually wanted to hear what someone had to say. Seriously, a 5 degree difference between idle and load. You ever hear of that before? That's why I asked what cooler you had also.

I know this, that's a feature of that chip gen. The specs on the q6600 actually does say 4mbx2, and yes, they did split it between the two duals in the processor. As for why, I asked myself the same thing, I guess it was better that way.

My question would be, are we talking 100% load on all 4 cores? Or load as in.... opened Firefox and downloaded something. Realistically, if you only go from 42C to 47C when going from idle to 100% load, you've got an extremely impressive cooling system on that CPU.

@thogrom, Oh, did you look up the search results? Omg... You got ***** slapped from the results huh? LOL! No, I don't need to see it, cause it's obvious you regret buying it. And if this is persuading you otherwise on your choice and supposively by an idiot as you say, the only idiot here is obvious. Maybe you weren't lying, but either way you still regret your choice which I should have put. If you got a good chip, what do you want people to give you a standing ovation? LOL!

And another thing, are you hearing yourself? If you were getting 1fps in your game and you were able to switch between programs easily, that's nice multitasking. It doesn't matter how choppy it was, that just means the cpu was running out of raw processing power or being brought it's spec limits, idiot! The e6420 is a crappy processor anyways. Good for you, it was an upgrade and you got a better chip.

But just post it just for the hell of it, and look up the results will ya?

Jerreece, Read my comment after your quote, I'm responding to it. So, you basically deny saying this.

Here, let me help you. Look at the way they show the cache on these three cpu's.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115017
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115041
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103244

I was enjoying the fight and I just saw that you were searching and learning.

Very good.

So Where are my temps?

What's your point? The Q6600 on NewEgg.com shows 2x4MB cache. The Q9550 simply says "12MB", and the AMD Phenom (which was never a part of our conversation) says L1 cache 4x128KB, L2 cache 4x512KB, L3 cache 2MB. Again, we're talking about Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad in this thread. Or did you somehow miss that?

I'm not denying saying anything. You're arguing against nothing. Here you come into this thread blowing steam about how mighty you are, and yet you're arguing nothing.

The Intel Quad core processors, are TWO Core 2 Duo chips put together. If Core 2 Duo = 2 CPUS, then Core 2 Quad = 4 CPUS.

A Q9550 has 12MB L2 cache. Half of that (6MB) is allocated specifically to ONE of the Core 2 Duo chips (which is TWO processing units). The other half (6MB) is allocated specifically to the SECOND Core 2 Duo chips (which is also TWO processing units).

If current games are only programmed to take advantage of Dual-Core chips, and not quads (therefore use TWO processing units, and not FOUR), then that game will only be using 6MB of that L2 cache in the first place. The second half of the L2 cache (the extra 6MB of that 12MB total) cannot be used by the game you're playing.

Therefore, the difference between a 6MB L2 cache on an E8600 vs 12MB L2 cache on a Q9550 won't matter, in a game which is only capable of using two cores since the Intel Quad Core processors (not AMD mind you, since we never mentioned AMD) do not allow for the two Core 2 Duo chips within the Quad core to share L2 cache with one another.

Therefore, shut up with your pointless argument over nothing.