AMD 9850 vs Intel Q6600

M

MrHood22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
4,312
Hey, I was wondering what the better overall CPU would be. It will mainly be for games and some OCing.

I see a lot of charts that go both ways with stock speed but both of these CPU's OC very well and I can't seem to pick which one.

They both seem like great buys with only a $15 difference (9850 is $15 more) but i'm looking for the one that is best.

If you have opinions on this one please list your logic behind it, i'd rather not look at "OMG AMD IS TeH PWNZ!!!!111!!" or vice versa.

Thank you.
 
Well according to your sig your using a 22" monitor. From what I have seen on anything 20" or bigger the frame rate difference in most games is minimal if anything comparing processors. I would then go with the 9850 for the sole reason that I dislike the socket 775 fan design and find them much more difficult to install vs the AM2 fans.
 
Well it's not actually for me. My friend is looking into a quad and i'm trying to push him towards Q6600 and our other mutual friend is trying to push towards the 9850. I thought i'd come here and see what you all think.

What i'm really interested in is performance in gaming.

Which is the faster CPU and why?

Keep in mind this wil be OCed. I think the 9850 is better at stock speeds but when it comes to Oced speeds the q6600 does better. What do you all think?
 
Yeah I realize that, he's looking for a quad though and he's pretty much narrowed it down to these 2.

Thanks though.
 
MrHood22 said:
Well it's not actually for me. My friend is looking into a quad and i'm trying to push him towards Q6600 and our other mutual friend is trying to push towards the 9850. I thought i'd come here and see what you all think.

What i'm really interested in is performance in gaming.

Which is the faster CPU and why?

Keep in mind this wil be OCed. I think the 9850 is better at stock speeds but when it comes to Oced speeds the q6600 does better. What do you all think?
Click to expand...

You know what the difference between a $1600 processor (QX9770) and a $250 one (Q6600) in Crysis is at 1680*1050 ? 4 FPS on AVG. That will give you the idea of the difference in processors in gaming at 20" or above.That is why i'm saying for games it won't really matter.
 
He may be gaming at 1280 x 1024 for a 19" I think, so the CPU should come into play a lot more.
 
No. Both CPUs will be able to maintain 60+ FPS (which is the monitor's refresh rate) in all the games I am aware of. If a slow down is noticed then it is most definately the video card or lack of RAM.

Of the two however, I would take the Q6600...cheaper, faster, overclocks better, less power consumption...There's nothing favoring the 9850.
 
I concur with Abu Som3a about the Q6600.

Plus the cheaper AMD motherboards can't support that AMD quad-core CPU anyway. So there aren't any costs savings with the AMD rig either.

However if you like the underdog, don't mind the many strikes against it, and not spending money efficiently, then go for the AMD rig.
 
Ahh ok.

My friend (Joe) who is arguing for the 9850 is showing all these charts where the 9850 beats the Q6600. The thing is that all of the charts are of stock speeds. That's where the 9850 wins (I think) at stock speeds. But when people go spend the money to get a quad core (or any other higher end CPU) then most times they don't just leave it at stock.

Does anyone have any charts showing a 9850 vs Q6600 after an OC?
 
I'd go with Intel, it's just that much better, o/c, performance, everything is in Intel's favor since multiple cores came out.
 
dennisjai said:
I'd go with Intel, it's just that much better, o/c, performance, everything is in Intel's favor since [Core2 Architecture] came out.
Click to expand...

Remember, AMD had been outperforming Intel Pentium D's with their Athlon 64 X2 line -- both of which have "multiple cores," -- 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top