Close to canceling my order

R

rverhas

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
102
I am so sick of waiting for my Q9550 retail that I am about ready to cancel my order and throw away an extra 400 dollars on the QX9650. Thoughts? talk me out of it please?
 
UtopiA said:
Q6600.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. Don't spend a grand on a QX9650 when you can get a Q6600 and overclock it almost as high. Or even a Q9450. At best you would get probably 240 more mhz core clock out of a Q9550 than a 9450, considering most max out at about 480fsb
 
If you're going to throw up your hands don't waste money. At least if you get a Q6600 you can say "Well, at least I made a more cost-efficient choice than my original Q9550 choice." Besides lets face it its not as if you were going to get much more performance out of it anyway. I'm not sure what you do with your PC, but if you play games your frame rates wont be affected AT ALL, and if you do anything else, the difference will be small.
 
I say piss your money away. What's it matter to me?
 
If your already wasti... er, throwing aw.... er, spending close to $600, what's another $400?
 
If you're spending that kind of money why don't you buy 2 q6600.

Then send one of them my way :D
 
I would buy a Q6600 and a good HSF now, clock it into the mid 3's, and sell it in 6 months when the Q9550's are down around $300 bux or so. Well, maybe $400, but at least they will be in stock.:p

Don
 
$400 is an awful lot to get a chip in your hands right now. If you already have the rest of the components, I'd get a cheap E21XX processor and have that until your order ships.
 
Close to canceling my order

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am so sick of waiting for my Q9550 retail that I am about ready to cancel my order and throw away an extra 400 dollars on the QX9650. Thoughts? talk me out of it please?
Click to expand...

If you are tired of waiting why not try for the Q9300? It is a quad core Penryn can overclock well and runs cool. The only downside is the cost of the Q9300 is a little bit higher than the Q6600 and you have to have a motherboard that support 45nm quads in the bios. The best news is the Q9300 is a HECK of a lot cheaper! :)
 
+1 on q6600. The power savings for the q96xx's pale in comparison to the $ savings on q6600+decent cooling.
 
Every time I see these threads I wonder if the person buying the processor has an actual use beyond "I just want it" for a processor that powerful.
 
Yeah seriously. I just got an x3350 and it's not all that amazing. It's quick and provides a good computing experience, and faster for video encodes, but otherwise I was happier overall with an E8400 at 4GHz. I am going to switch back to a faster dual core and throw this quad into an encoding box. I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what to do with those extra cores, whereas before on the E8400 it was just a better computing experience. Any suggestions?
 
Flexion said:
Yeah seriously. I just got an x3350 and it's not all that amazing. It's quick and provides a good computing experience, and faster for video encodes, but otherwise I was happier overall with an E8400 at 4GHz. I am going to switch back to a faster dual core and throw this quad into an encoding box. I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what to do with those extra cores, whereas before on the E8400 it was just a better computing experience. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

This is why I just said screw it and ordered a $200 E8400 yesterday. I wouldn't use the extra cores in a quad core anyway, and it'll hold me over 'til Nehalem.
 
I have definitely been talked out of spending so much money. The Q9330 does sound like a good move, but buying a cheaper dual core and running that for a while doesn't sound bad either, at least it would give me something to run, and most importantly make sure everything I have will post before my time to return to newegg is up. Plus, any dual core would be much faster than what I already have. I know the Q6600 is a great processor, I was just hoping to get something with the higher cache. Thank you all for the input.
 
@Brahmzy:
An E6600 at 3.4 GHz will hold you over until Nehalem. That E8400 for you is a waste of money, imo.
 
rverhas said:
I have definitely been talked out of spending so much money. The Q9330 does sound like a good move, but buying a cheaper dual core and running that for a while doesn't sound bad either, at least it would give me something to run, and most importantly make sure everything I have will post before my time to return to newegg is up. Plus, any dual core would be much faster than what I already have. I know the Q6600 is a great processor, I was just hoping to get something with the higher cache. Thank you all for the input.
Click to expand...


Why Not Q9450 at $370, Saves you enough to buy a Motherboard over what youve orderd and is very fast.
 
Q6750

my X3350 is very good, not worth the extra 150 over a Q6600 right now. But i hope that 12meg cache will improve things later on.
 
As far as a Q9550 is concerned, I'm not sure if it's the same binning issue with the E8400 vs. E8500, as there are plenty of folks that aren't getting the 4.4GHz OC's with the E8500s, lots of people are just settling for 500 x 8 for 24/7 stability.

So the premium to pay for a Q9550 probably isn't worth it. Sure you can get a slightly better OC by a couple of hundred MHz, but is it worth $500 vs $370? Save up for a Nehalem. My E8400 was so easy to OC that I figured I'd get a Yorkfield just cuz I had an itch to own a quad. Wish I kept that $350 in the bank for a Nehalem next year. Well, the fact that everything is 20/20 in hindsight is a bitch isn't it?
 
So you're going to reward Intel for having a shortage of Q9550's by giving them another $400 for a more expensive CPU? It's your money, but that sounds a bit retarded to me.

Put me down as another vote in favor of the Q6600. The main lure for the 45nm quads for me was their overclocking potential, but it has ben shown time and agan that the 45nm CPU's have nearly the same ceiling as the Q6600 does. Speculation says that the limiting factor are the motherboards, but until the P45 chipset is available which will almost certainly have a higher FSB ceiling, then IMO it's really not worth spending more for a 9450,9550 or even worse, a QX9650. Unless you know you'll make extensive use of SSE4, in which case I would simply wait until you can get a 9450 or 9550, never a QX though.
 
I totally agree with the above post. I have a DC2D E6600 @ 3.1Ghz stable, works well for now, waiting for 3rd Quarter when other chips hit the market and the ones now start to drop. Probably best to get a good dual core for now, OC it because you will actually be able to use it more. The Quad chips as nice as they sound are not being fully tasked yet till the software/game mature into it, so for now, get a kicking dual core, oc it and save some $$$$.

If your board supports the 45nm, I say nail one of the Wolfdale chips (E8400 or E3110) and OC it, I am sure you wont be disapointed.
 
I am going to go ahead and buy a dual core to hold me off for a while, but I really don't want to spend the money for the E8400. I only plan on using it until I get my quad core and then I will throw it in my mom's computer. what do you think about this allendale?
I would be putting it in my 790i board.
 
 
Bad Don! But I just can't resist!

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....ht=e8400+q6600

And that's just the threads with both processors in the title and does not include the countless others that evolved to a Q6600 vs E8400 discussion.
Click to expand...

I bought a Q6600 because 4 cores is more than 2 cores. If they sold and 11 core processor I would buy it because 11 is higher than 10. :rolleyes:

Don
 
Yeah, there are way too many threads on dual vs. quads. It's clear that because of engineering differences, that the processors are capable of different things. I wish folks would just read through the threads instead.
 
Flexion said:
Yeah, there are way too many threads on dual vs. quads. It's clear that because of engineering differences, that the processors are capable of different things. I wish folks would just read through the threads instead.
Click to expand...

True Dat,

After switching to a Quad, I think Intel should relegate Duals to the Celeron Line and only push Quads+ on the Core line.
 
TheBluePill said:
True Dat,

After switching to a Quad, I think Intel should relegate Duals to the Celeron Line and only push Quads+ on the Core line.
Click to expand...

Naw, they can't do that. Then what would they do with the current Celerons? hehehehe...

They could name them Craperons!!! :D

But seriously, an E8400 with 6mb of cache can't be classified as an economical chip, although it is a freakin' awesome value.

All I know is that the marketing idiots at Intel will probably call the nehalems Core3 or something like that.
 
folding@home

with any sort of distributed computing，quads simply eat duals alive

Flexion said:
Yeah seriously. I just got an x3350 and it's not all that amazing. It's quick and provides a good computing experience, and faster for video encodes, but otherwise I was happier overall with an E8400 at 4GHz. I am going to switch back to a faster dual core and throw this quad into an encoding box. I'm having a tough time trying to figure out what to do with those extra cores, whereas before on the E8400 it was just a better computing experience. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top