best upgrade for me E8500 or Q9450

[Live OR Die]

looking to upgrade to a faster cpu will oc, but only have air cooling whats the best cpu to go for thanks:toast:

[Cold Storm]

Well, here is different stroke for different fokes... A quad would be benefited if you wanted to heavy Multi task workings... to where as a Duel Core would be good if you do gaming and stuff of that nature. The E8500 can clock quite well as well as the Q9450. Its just a matter of what you do all the time.

[DOM]

well if your not in to 3dmark06 scores the E8500 cuz 3dmark01,03,05 are better with more Ghz and 06 is likes the Q more

so for gaming E8500 would get more Ghz vs the Q as most cant get 4Ghz+ off the Q9450

[JrRacinFan]

TBH, e8400 would be more beneficial if cost is a concern. If not and you don't as heavy multitask like storm said, don't do the quad.

[magibeg]

Have you considered a q6600? It has a higher multiplier than the Q9450 so you might actually be able to get more out of it. And a number of times its been listed now that in terms of actual performance the quads really do display some benefits in games now. I'll have to look for the link though.

[Cold Storm]

Quad cores do have their benefits in Games now. You have games like Assassins Creed, and Crysis, that is hungry for anything and everything that can be thrown at them..

[magibeg]

Ok here we go

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

thats a good example of a well done and fairly recent article on the subject.

[DOM]

CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors (http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/)

[DOM]

Ok here we go

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

thats a good example of a well done and fairly recent article on the subject.
LOL you beat me but they say a Dual with more GHz is better then a Q


So then, the hardcore truth today is a very simple fact: you'll gain a better bang for buck in your games from a faster clocked dual-core processor opposed to having a somewhat slower clocked quad-core processor. That doesn't mean though that quad-core processors offers less value. Contrary, and I know I've been evangelizing it for over a year now, but the future is multi-core gaming, the fact is just that dual-core is the sweet spot value wise anno 2008 as 95% of the games still only use one and maybe two CPU cores.

and his on air im sure he could run a dual at 4+Ghz then a Q

[JrRacinFan]

Oooh look at that, 1 FPS difference. Sorry to say, You just backed up my point and Cold Storm's previously mentioned earlier. So I shall reiterate, Quad if needing more power in everything else also.

PS: 4000th Post w00t!

[magibeg]

Depending on what level chip he gets though he might be able to hit as high as 3.8ghz on a quad though. My q6600 is running at 3.627 right now and only at 58C small FFT prime. Chip depending of course like all things. I just think if you look towards the newer games they're getting more CPU intensive and multi-threaded. Lets say the game even only uses 2 cores to 100%. You will still have 2 other cores to run anything in the background that may come up. I just find it leads to an all around smoother experience.

[Live OR Die]

lol i use my system for gamin the most, if i get the quad can i oc to 3-4ghz, will the quad be faster in games at say 3ghz then the dual core at 3ghz or the same?

[magibeg]

In that link i posted, compare the 3ghz quad to the 3ghz dual and you'll see what I'm talking about. The quad seems to have the advantage in a clock for clock race. If you can get the quad to a clock a little closer to the dual the quad will perform better. Also i really think you should look at the q6600 instead of the q9450.


edit- whoa just noticed the q9450 dominating on the game benchmarks!

[DOM]

No, the winner in this article has to be the 45nm Penryn based Core 2 Quad Q9450. At 300 USD this processor offers leading performance at a leading price.:p

I run mine at 3.6GHz 24/7 on 1.288v im sure you can also on air

so if your not looking at 4+GHz get the Q9450 has it has the 12MB L2

[Live OR Die]

had a look thats a hard one, don't know what to do know lol

[magibeg]

If i was in your situation i would go for the q9450 now. Did a little googling and it looks like 3.4ghz shouldn't be a big deal on air and clock for clock it appears to be pretty damn good always getting just as high or higher than the e8400 even when its a 2.66ghz to 3ghz comparison.

If you plan on using that cpu for a while i'd say go for the q9450. If you're just looking for a new processor to hold you over for a while maybe the 8400.

edit- i just noticed you're on an e6850 already. Go for the q9450 or save your money until the next set of chips come out (although they're on a different socket)

[Live OR Die]

will i get better performance out of the q9450 running at 3.5ghz , than my cpu i have now i have it clocked at 3.8Ghz sould i just hold off?

[DOM]

will i get better performance out of the q9450 running at 3.5ghz , than my cpu i have now i have it clocked at 3.8Ghz sould i just hold off?

well the only thing I can help you with is cpu benches as your card kills mine :o

just let me know if you want me to run some vs yours at 3.8GHz cuz mines the Xeon ver. of the Q9450 ;)

[Live OR Die]

only have 3dmark 06 scores should i download pcmark?

[echo75]

lol i use my system for gamin the most, if i get the quad can i oc to 3-4ghz, will the quad be faster in games at say 3ghz then the dual core at 3ghz or the same?

this is the truth of the matter mate-


Quad core @ 3.0 Ghz and a dual core @ 3.0Ghz will yield SAME in games that only use one or two cores but the Quad will be better in running daily general computing at once.

Quad @ 3.0 and Dual @ 3.4 ofc the dual core will give better results here in gaming due to higher Ghz. If its the Quad that overclocked higher , then it will be better. Just remember that Duals at the momment are much easier to overclock than quads.

I personally have a E6850 clocked to 3.8Ghz and a Q6700 clocked to 3.5Ghz.
The Q6700 gives slightly lower results in gaming but the truth is that once you clock above 3.2Ghz the effects is almost negligable, sometimes not even noticable coz many games are perfectly satisfied with over 3GHz.

However the Q6700beats the E6850 when i am gaming, same time transfering stuff from another external disk to my PC, 3-4 explorer windows open and photoshop open as i quickly put the screenies i take ingame in photoshop . I have not tried it yet but i am sure i can encode too while gaming without feeling the smack. Thats were pure CPU raw power counts.

Also if you do benchmarks, the Quad will basically rule in most if not all of them.

The choice is rally personal. ;)

[Cold Storm]

However the Q6700beats the E6850 when i am gaming, same time transfering stuff from another external disk to my PC, 3-4 explorer windows open and photoshop open as i quickly put the screenies i take ingame in photoshop . I have not tried it yet but i am sure i can encode too while gaming without feeling the smack. Thats were pure CPU raw power counts.

Also if you do benchmarks, the Quad will basically rule in most if not all of them.

The choice is rally personal. ;)

Thats the whole reason I went Quad. There really isn't any games that are out right now that require or benefit with quad. Its more of the matter the Graphics card. But, I do a lot of Photoshop, Rendering, and stuff of that nature to where it is benefited to me to get a quad core and go with the video card that I did. I really don't have a E-P3n1s thing. I've killed two cards and a motherboard, not by my e-p3n1s, but by the fact that I wanted to see how far they could go. Just so Happened that the motherboard went with it...
It is all ways and will be forever up to the person buying it, if they think that the quad will be the better of the two.

[Live OR Die]

i was just goin to upgrade so i could sell my Cpu to a mate, so mite just go with a E8500, what about a Q9300?

[Cold Storm]

To tell you the truth with the set-up that you have, you could benefit getting a quad core. That way, later down the road there won't need to be a upgrade for anything. Thats the only thing I can say...

[DOM]

the Q9450 is the cheapest with the 12MB L2 so its up to you what you really want

[Live OR Die]

the quad will run hotter oced than the dual my cpu atm runs at 40-50c so would it be smart goin to a quad and ocing it?

[ShadowFold]

I say go with a E8500/E8400. By the time stuff starts using quad core and it becomes the norm the quads now will be slow.

[Live OR Die]

yer think the E8500 oc is the best way to go for me atm thanks guys

[BarbaricSoul]

if your already running a duo at 3.8, I wouldn't upgrade to the e8400 or the e8500, you won't see much if any performance gain as you'll be replacing a cpu overclocked to 3.8 with a cpu capable of OC'ing to 4.5 max(mine wasn't stable at 4.2).3.9 is the most I've gotten stable so far. If you upgrade, go with the quad, but honestly I doubt the quad upgrade would really help much.

IMHO you should hold off until the next gen cpu's(nahelan) are released.

[BarbaricSoul]

btw, I feel your pain bro, I'm in the same boat. I want to do some more upgrading, but there's not much I can do that would give me any benefit

[fitseries3]

i own both of these chips and i will say that both chips are so fast that you may not see a huge difference in speed between the 2 chips other than benchenmarking scores. my e8500 has OCed to 5.62ghz and still runs great. my q9450 on the other hand has gone into 4ghz without much difficulty.

[Cold Storm]

i own both of these chips and i will say that both chips are so fast that you may not see a huge difference in speed between the 2 chips other than benchenmarking scores. my e8500 has OCed to 5.62ghz and still runs great. my q9450 on the other hand has gone into 4ghz without much difficulty.

You think my system would benefit over a 45nm quad?? lol.. I can't wait to see your benches on whatever you think about.

[rangerone766]

my .02cents

my backup rig consists of a abit ip35-e,e3110,4gigs of tracers, and a palit 9600gt.

for the money i have in it, i'm very impressed. i scored about 14k in 3dmark06.

you cant go wrong with a new wolfdale cored cpu, if your on a real tight budget a e2180 would be a decent choice aswell. i upgraded from a e2180, while the e3110 is a big improvement, if money is tight the e2180 is an ok cpu.

[fitseries3]

see the attached pics. i'll put up the q9450's here in a bit.

i'd say get the e8500 unless you need 4 cores. the e8500 can OC much further and is fast as hell.

[BarbaricSoul]

:eek:core voltage of 1.512

[modder]

E8500 for game/data compression (ferrari)
Q9450 for 2D/3D and multitasking (mercedes)

[Live OR Die]

so just stay with the e6850 what speeds can i hit with using air on a e8500?

[tkpenalty]

so just stay with the e6850 what speeds can i hit with using air on a e8500?

Go with a quad, in the long term you will have more benefits...

[Temps_Riising]

I have an E8500 and an E8200, bang for buck the E8200 is the much better chip of the two, mine will hit 4.4gig stable and I run her at 4gig 24/7 on 1.325V, with the extra L2 cache they are10% faster than the 65nm duellies in any case and it's a good safe bet to get an improvement in performance over your current CPU without breaking the bank.

I am a great quad supporter, I had two before going duellie again (only because all I seem to do these days is game) but sadly, there are too few genuine multithredded games available still and only 1 in 20 new titles is multithredded and many of those show too little improvement over a dual core, take Supreme Commander for example, clock for clock a quad on average performs 3% faster than a duellie in this Multi Thredded game, when you add the lower volts, less heat and generally higher OC capabilities of the dual core, in my opinion it becomes a "no brainer".......just my thoughts.