Prolonging the life of my Q9550 setup

A

arthur_tuxedo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
559
Hello,

I have the following setup:

CPU: Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz (stock speed, stock cooler)
MOBO: Gigabyte P35 DS3L
GPU: GTX460 768MB
RAM: 4 x 1 GB DDR2 800
CASE: Coolermaster Mystique Full-tower
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 500W

I game at 1680 x 1050 and play the occasional modern, graphically demanding game. At the moment, that would be Planetary Annihilation and Arma 3. I generally prefer not to drop the settings below medium-high.

Any meaningful upgrade at this point would involve a new socket, which means a new mobo, which means DDR3 RAM, essentially a whole new system. Since cash is tight, I am considering a CPU overclock as a means of prolonging the system's life.

What is my best bet for a quiet and relatively inexpensive cooler that gives me a good chance of hitting 3.7 GHz? Will I need something like the NZXT X40 for will a cheaper air system work just fine?
 
Echo or any AIO watercooler on sale (~$40).

Also wouldn't be terrible to spend more money on a cooler considering most come with brackets from 775 to new sockets 1155/1150. So you can continue to use it in the future. Companies like Silverstone also often release updated brackets for new sockets.
 
And as for the overclocking, that mobo easily took my q9550 to 3.5 which is a noticeable performance difference. It didn't want to go much higher than that without a significant voltage bump though. I am also running a hyper 212 on it.
 
You should be able to pick up a cheap Sandy-based board, CPU and memory for very little cash that'll eat your Q9550 for lunch. I'd put the money toward a newer board/CPU/memory combination instead..
 
lutjens said:
You should be able to pick up a cheap Sandy-based board, CPU and memory for very little cash that'll eat your Q9550 for lunch. I'd put the money toward a newer board/CPU/memory combination instead..
Click to expand...

Though I agree with everything you said, what's great about cooling is that it's a solid investment. A good cooler can last several generations of boards and CPUs. So spending the ~36 on a hyper212 now may be a good choice because if he buys a new setup in a year or more, chances are he'll be able to use it still.
 
I've got an i7-920 under a Hyper 212+ right now. In the past I have used the Hyper 212s on an i7-2500k, 2600k, 3770k, 3820, etc as well as everything from my Phenom II 955 to my 1090T (ran it at 4GHz and 1.425V). It is consistently one of the best performing CPU coolers for the money, though I do suggest putting better fans on it. My best setup was a push-pull configuration using Cooler Master Turbine Master 120mm fans, but I'm pretty sure they discontinued those fans.

I've also got an NZXT Respire T20 that was a shell-shocker deal for $15 not that long ago. It isn't much easier to install and performs a few degrees worse, but from a price/performance standpoint you really can't go wrong. Looking back, I don't think I've ever spent more than $25 for a Hyper 212, though I've gotten slightly different versions (at some point they redesigned the heatpipe base so that it was flat instead of having gaps between them; on another one the fan and fan clips are different).
 
Have you also considered maybe selling your current video card and getting a cheap 7850 or GTX 650Ti Boost on sale? I think that may provide more of a bump in your gaming than just overclocking the CPU. Or do both...
 
lilstevo has a valid point. I'm in the process of reinstalling Windows on my Q9550S machine. I've been meaning to benchmark it with a range of video cards just for fun. I've got a 1GB 460, 480, 670 from nVidia and a 7850 from AMD (if I can get it working with the old system). I'm curious to see what happens at stock clocks and with some OCing. I guess I figured out what I'm going to do tonight...
 
Even a 7790 (1gb versions less than $140) would be noticeably faster than a 460 768m
 
KazeoHin said:
Though I agree with everything you said, what's great about cooling is that it's a solid investment. A good cooler can last several generations of boards and CPUs. So spending the ~36 on a hyper212 now may be a good choice because if he buys a new setup in a year or more, chances are he'll be able to use it still.
Click to expand...

I agree that improved cooling could be reused on a newer system in the future, but even a Sandy using a reused stock HSF would make for very impressive gains in his case, gains that would far exceed the benefit that slightly higher overclock a new HSF would wring out of his Q9550. Only if budget was an extreme concern would a new HSF make more sense, as it would allow some gains to be realized right away, rather than incurring the delay that saving for an upgrade would incur.
 
If you can live without your PC for a while, your 9550 will fetch over $100 on fs/t or eBay. I sold a q9450 for $120+ just a few months ago. This is Australia, though. It may be different internationally.
 
I haven't gotten the chance to install the 480 in my Q9550S setup yet, but I did run some benchmarks with the 460 1GB and 670 2GB that I have.

Complete system specifications:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S @ 2.83GHz (Stock)
Intel DP45SG
4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3-1333 (4x1GB)
Western Digital Caviar Blue 250GB
Seasonic G-650
Cooler Master Stacker 830

ASUS GTX 670 2GB:
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/12/2013 5:46:11 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 56.67
Max. Framerate: 187.55
Min. Framerate: 4.49

EVGA GTX 460 1GB:
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/11/2013 10:46:35 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 31.67
Max. Framerate: 83.52
Min. Framerate: 4.72

ASUS GTX 670 2GB with CPU overclocked to 3GHz (6%)
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/12/2013 7:05:36 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 54.33
Max. Framerate: 191.68
Min. Framerate: 5.41

Conclusions:

The average and maximum framerates increased considerably with the newer video card. The minimum framerates are so close its a wash.

I was monitoring the GPU usage using MSI Afterburner's OSD and saw a maximum of 99% utilization with the 460, so I believe it is being properly supplied by the CPU.

I saw a maximum of 90% utilization with the 670, but it was so brief I actually had to go back and check the log to make sure I wasn't seeing things. The CPU appears to definitely bottleneck the GPU.

Overclocking, even a marginal amount, shows a bit of an increase on some points. I saw a brief point of 95% GPU utilization with the minor OC and the minimum framerate came up a whole frame...
 
Last edited:
I started testing on my other rig. The complete specifications are:

Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.4GHz (Stock)
Gigabyte Z68MA-D2H-B3
4GB Team Elite DDR3-1333 (2x2GB)
Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB
Corsair HX650W
NZXT Vulcan

EVGA GTX 460 1GB:
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/12/2013 8:14:04 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 36.00
Max. Framerate: 86.42
Min. Framerate: 9.33

Note: I didn't want to install the memory from the Q9550S machine so I found the next closest thing that I had on-hand.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I haven't gotten the chance to install the 480 in my Q9550S setup yet, but I did run some benchmarks with the 460 1GB and 670 2GB that I have.

Complete system specifications:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S @ 2.83GHz (Stock)
Intel DP45SG
4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3-1333 (4x1GB)
Western Digital Caviar Blue 250GB
Seasonic G-650
Cooler Master Stacker 830

ASUS GTX 670 2GB:
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/12/2013 5:46:11 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 56.67
Max. Framerate: 187.55
Min. Framerate: 4.49

EVGA GTX 460 1GB:
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/11/2013 10:46:35 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 31.67
Max. Framerate: 83.52
Min. Framerate: 4.72

ASUS GTX 670 2GB with CPU overclocked to 3GHz (6%)
METRO 2033 BENCHMARK RESULTS
10/12/2013 7:05:36 PM
frontline
Options: Resolution: 1680 x 1050; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Average Results

Average Framerate: 54.33
Max. Framerate: 191.68
Min. Framerate: 5.41

Conclusions:

The average and maximum framerates increased considerably with the newer video card. The minimum framerates are so close its a wash.

I was monitoring the GPU usage using MSI Afterburner's OSD and saw a maximum of 99% utilization with the 460, so I believe it is being properly supplied by the CPU.

I saw a maximum of 90% utilization with the 670, but it was so brief I actually had to go back and check the log to make sure I wasn't seeing things. The CPU appears to definitely bottleneck the GPU.

Overclocking, even a marginal amount, shows a bit of an increase on some points. I saw a brief point of 95% GPU utilization with the minor OC and the minimum framerate came up a whole frame...
Click to expand...

Which is why I think a graphics card upgrade would do so much more than the CPU overclock. But I guess it really comes down to how much op has to spend.
 
ANY modern quad cpu with L3 would be a vast improvement.
Deneb,Thuban,Lynnfield,Bloomfield...
but as has been said...better gpu would be bang-for-buck
 
Last edited:
My wife's computer is running my old Q9550 at stock for her needs but when it was mine I had 212 Plus on it and 3.8 OC. It ran flawlessly. I put my old Gigabyte GTX 660 OC in it and it runs really nice on the benchmarks I've put it through. I think I had to put 1.3v to the 9550 to get 3.8 if I recall. I just installed 212 EVO on mine and am seeing generally about 5C lower load temps and the fan is quiet compared to the 212 plus.
 
Thanks for the responses, everyone! I don't have the budget now for a serious upgrade, especially considering that every major part of the system would need to be replaced. If I can spend $30 on a cooler that can be re-used and continue gaming on this system for another year, that seems like the way to go. I don't know of any games that would slow down on a Q9550 clocked in the high 3 GHz range except at settings that the GPU would never support anyway, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason to spend $500+ on a new MB, CPU, and DDR3 RAM (current setup uses DDR2) or to get a new GPU that proceeds to be choked by the rest of the setup. Better to put it off until next year when the cash flow is easier and gains will be even better.
 
I would absolutely opt for a new GPU. My old Q9950 machine with a GTX275 (approx. equivalent to your 460) showed hardly any improvement between stock speed and 3.6GHz. Upgrading to a GTX670 on the other hand, gave it a HUGE boost. I can't give you any numbers since I never run benchmarks, but subjectively it was much like the difference between treacle and K-Y Gel. Probably. Sort of. I think. Well, you get the picture.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Thanks for the responses, everyone! I don't have the budget now for a serious upgrade, especially considering that every major part of the system would need to be replaced. If I can spend $30 on a cooler that can be re-used and continue gaming on this system for another year, that seems like the way to go. I don't know of any games that would slow down on a Q9550 clocked in the high 3 GHz range except at settings that the GPU would never support anyway, so I'm not seeing a compelling reason to spend $500+ on a new MB, CPU, and DDR3 RAM (current setup uses DDR2) or to get a new GPU that proceeds to be choked by the rest of the setup. Better to put it off until next year when the cash flow is easier and gains will be even better.
Click to expand...

Biggest reason would be that DDR3 RAM will be more expensive next year. DDR3 RAM have been increasing in price over the past year and it does not look it'll ever drop back down to the $40 for 8GB of DDR3 RAM range again. It's already getting near $70 for the relatively lower-end RAM. In addition, the gains over current Intel CPUs probably won't be that large judging from the current single-digit percentage performance increase trend that Intel is having.

The Intel Skylake CPUs that are supposedly coming out in 2015 will more than likely use rather expensive DDR4 RAM. It probably won't be until 2016 when we'll see a mainstream Intel CPU that'll be a cost-effective and worthwhile upgrade over a Haswell or even an Ivy Bridge setup. Or that DDR4 pricing might drop down to more reasonable levels.
 
Those are some very good points. If there's any way you can earn, beg, steal or borrow (well, probably not steal and maybe not borrow) enough money to buy a new system, now really is the time to do it. If you can't, a GPU is second choice. If you absolutely can't afford anything other than a new cooler, then I really wouldn't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top