Q6600 vs. Q9550

O

Overdose

New Member
Hey, I am looking to build a new PC

What I'm getting so far (without CPU) :

Case: Antec Twelve Hundred Black Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case

Motherboard: ASUS RAMPAGE FORMULA LGA 775 Intel X48 ATX Intel Motherboard

Memory: CORSAIR DOMINATOR 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory

GPU: SAPPHIRE 100259-1GL Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card

PSU: CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Power Supply

Monitor: Acer P243WAid Black-Silver 24" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor with HDCP Support 400 cd/m2 3000:1 ACM

HDD: Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - Prepared to pay a little extra for HDD performance.

O.S: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit

CPU Cooler: ZALMAN CNPS9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler

Thermal Paste: Arctic Silver 5 Thermal Compound

Now, I want to try to stay below $2000 and the 9550 really pushes it a bit over. Is the q6600 good enough for my system (I would be running games such as CS:S, Crysis, Farcry 2, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty: World at War, L4D, etc). I understand the q9550 is a 12MB L2 Cache and runs cooler, but is it really extremely worth more than the q6600? Would save me $130 too.
 
Calibretto said:
If you get the Q6600, you could just easily overclock it, even past the Q9550 clock speed.
Click to expand...

huh?? where did you get this? there's no way that you can get higher clocks with a q6600 than a q9550. do you know how hard it is to reach 4ghz with a q6600? at least not at acceptable voltages and temps, and this is assuming your board won't have any problems with the high fsb. most q9550 E0 can easily hit 4ghz between 1.3 to 1.4v.

for the OP, with a budget of $2k, why are you getting intel's oldest quad? that's a large budget for just a q6600. you would be much better skimping on other parts. for example, it doesn't make sense that you're getting a $290 x48 board when you're not doing crossfire. gigabyte's UD3 series p45 is only about $120 and will offer the same clocking performance in single GPU setups. you'd be best with a q9550 + UD3 mobo as opposed to a q6600 + rampage. and i would get another CPU cooler. there's better ones that cost less, like sunbeam's freezer, OCZ's vendetta2, or xigmatech
 
WhiteFireDragon said:
huh?? where did you get this? there's no way that you can get higher clocks with a q6600 than a q9550. do you know how hard it is to reach 4ghz with a q6600? at least not at acceptable voltages and temps, and this is assuming your board won't have any problems with the high fsb. most q9550 E0 can easily hit 4ghz between 1.3 to 1.4v.

for the OP, with a budget of $2k, why are you getting intel's oldest quad? that's a large budget for just a q6600. you would be much better skimping on other parts. for example, it doesn't make sense that you're getting a $290 x48 board when you're not doing crossfire. gigabyte's UD3 series p45 is only about $120 and will offer the same clocking performance in single GPU setups. you'd be best with a q9550 + UD3 mobo as opposed to a q6600 + rampage. and i would get another CPU cooler. there's better ones that cost less, like sunbeam's freezer, OCZ's vendetta2, or xigmatech
Click to expand...

i think what calibretto was trying to say that the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 runs at 2.83 GHz stock and you can easy overclock the q6600 past that!

me personaly i would get the q9550 if i had the cash but its your money, both chips are good and overclock well
 
I would find the money to get the Q9550. The Q6600 is a great processor...I bet you'll be much more pleased with the Q9550. You will be able to overclock it a bit, up a little past 3GHz with just a bump of the FSB. That won't even stress the Q9550. For a Q6600 to run a little over 3GHz will take a little more work. Then you will need to get into some more advanced overclocking features (cpu voltage, chipset adjustments and a few other things) The 45nm Quads run pretty cool also.

That's just my recommendation for ya....get the Q9550:)
 
WhiteFireDragon said:
huh?? where did you get this? there's no way that you can get higher clocks with a q6600 than a q9550. do you know how hard it is to reach 4ghz with a q6600? at least not at acceptable voltages and temps, and this is assuming your board won't have any problems with the high fsb. most q9550 E0 can easily hit 4ghz between 1.3 to 1.4v.
Click to expand...

Ok first of all, the Q9550 clocks in at 2.83GHz, not 4GHz. A Q6600 can easily be OCed past 3.0GHz. With that said, it is very possible to get higher clocks than a Q9550.

I do agree with Garethman that the Q9550 is newer technology, so it's a choice whether you want to spend more money on the 45nm and the bigger L2 cache.
 
Q9550 is superior but I gotta say playing my friends Q9550 and my Q6600 both @ 3.2ghz I hardly notice a difference.

The only difference is I picked up my Q6600 off ebay for 100 bucks never opened and he spent 300 bucks ^-^

Also mine is roughly 5-6c hotter but he has a Antec 900 case so better cooling then me. He also had to up his voltage were I was able to leave mine @ the VID of 1.325v.


Personally I would save some cash and get a Antec 900 case...doesn't seem like you need a full tower unless your going nuts? you save 70 bucks there so you can get your Q9550.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129021&Tpk=Antec 900
 
Last edited:
Calibretto said:
Ok first of all, the Q9550 clocks in at 2.83GHz, not 4GHz. A Q6600 can easily be OCed past 3.0GHz. With that said, it is very possible to get higher clocks than a Q9550.
Click to expand...

first of all, why would you compare a OC'ed q6600 to a stock q9550? this is like saying a e2160 is better than a e8600 since it can clock up to 3.4ghz, while the e8600 runs at only 3.33ghz stock. if you compare stock to stock, the q9550 is faster. if you compare both to around max OC's, the q9550 is faster. q6600 is safely max at around 3.4ghz, the q9550 will max at 4.0+ ghz.
 
Q9550,just because its 45Nm and a bit faster than a Q6600 stock.

However it would depend on how much more the Q9550 would cost against the Q6600.
 
Kornowski said:
Try 3.6 - 3.8Ghz.
Click to expand...

i mentioned that it was a SAFE max to include all the bad chips out there and the B3's. of course, you can always push it a little further and pump over 1.4v. i think it's safe to say most will not do 3.6 - 3.8 with voltages between 1.3- 1.4. mine can only do 3.2ghz at 1.41v in BIOS. tried to get lower voltages, but i can't, no matter how much i tune the vtt, vnb, PLL, or GLT
 
Anything under 1.5v is considered safe for the Q6600. If you were buying a Q6600 now, there'd be no way you'd get the B3 stepping, they don't make 'em any more.

Mine takes 1.42v to reach 3.4Ghz. Which is perfectly fine. So, I'd say a safe clock for the Q6600, is actually anything under 1.5v, so you're looking around 3.6 - 3.8Ghz.
 
Yeah, the Q6600 is extremely durable. I'm just saying that if you don't want to spend a lot of money on the Q9550, then you can get the Q6600 and OC it to at least a 2.83GHz clock to make it "act" like a Q9550.
 
Kornowski said:
Anything under 1.5v is considered safe for the Q6600. If you were buying a Q6600 now, there'd be no way you'd get the B3 stepping, they don't make 'em any more.

Mine takes 1.42v to reach 3.4Ghz. Which is perfectly fine. So, I'd say a safe clock for the Q6600, is actually anything under 1.5v, so you're looking around 3.6 - 3.8Ghz.
Click to expand...

i have no problem pushing a 65nm chip up to 1.6v on air. but with my specific case with my q6600, the jump from 3.2 to just 3.4 requires too much of a voltage increase, while it can do 3.0 at stock voltages. i leave the comp on 24/7 to crunch at 100% load and temps are currently at 75C with a stock cooler, so that's why i don't want to go above 1.45v or want the heat dump to my room. it would be a totally different case if my comp was on only 6 hours a day, idle most of the time. in this case, i would try to get the max clocks with 1.55v.

anyways, straying a little off topic. for the OP, what it comes down to is how much you're willing to spend for just the chip. q9550 for higher clocks at stock and OC, lower temps, lower voltages, but more "fragile" and more expensive. q6600 for considerably lower price and handles abuse better, but will require more power draw from the wall at the same clocks as q9550, runs hotter, and require more voltages. but i just personally think with a $2000 budget, a $320 chip is not that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top