Replacing Intel Q9550 2.83GHz

MightyMatt

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
532
For gaming purposes (Star Citizen and Fallout 4), I'm looking to upgrade my old Intel Q9550 2.83GHz to a better chip that is compatible with a Asus P5Q-E motherboard.

Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to keep this archaic rig alive and playing the latest games.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,926
Does anyone have any ideas?

A skylake based i3 or i5.


I'm looking to upgrade my old Intel Q9550 2.83GHz to a better chip that is compatible with a Asus P5Q-E motherboard.

There is no real upgrade for this board. I mean unless you can get a QX9775 for $30 or somthing like that..
 

auntjemima

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
8,478
You aren't really going to find anything faster than that chip. I think the Extreme chips are slightly faster but for the cost you could get a new chip and a board, from my past experiences when I upgraded my Q6700 a few months ago.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
OC'ing the chip will result in the same performance as upgrading it to the extreme chip. I did this for a long while on my 9450 @ 3.6ghz.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
I'd just bite the bullet and swap it out for an X99 or Z170 based board, 950 Pro 512GB M.2 SSD and whichever CPU you can afford.

You'll notice a significant performance increase...;)

I just swapped the board/CPU out of an old Q6600 HP media center PC that my grandparents used (and abused) for 5 years after I rescued it from a snowbank many years ago and rebuilt it for them. Was a Q6600@3GHz, 8GB RAM. I threw a Maximus VIII Gene/i7-6700k/950 Pro 512GB M.2 in it with 64GB of Corsair 3200MHz DDR4 and an Asetek 92mm AIO water cooler. Fairly substantial performance increase (to say the least) over the Q6600, even using the integrated graphics. I haven't decided on which discrete GPU I'll install (if any). That'll depend on who ends up with the system...;)
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
I'd just bite the bullet and swap it out for an X99 or Z170 based board, 950 Pro 512GB M.2 SSD and whichever CPU you can afford.

You'll notice a significant performance increase...;)

I just swapped the board/CPU out of an old Q6600 HP media center PC that my grandparents used (and abused) for 5 years after I rescued it from a snowbank many years ago and rebuilt it for them. Was a Q6600@3GHz, 8GB RAM. I threw a Maximus VIII Gene/i7-6700k/950 Pro 512GB M.2 in it with 64GB of Corsair 3200MHz DDR4 and an Asetek 92mm AIO water cooler. Fairly substantial performance increase (to say the least) over the Q6600, even using the integrated graphics. I haven't decided on which discrete GPU I'll install (if any). That'll depend on who ends up with the system...;)

I went minimus - G3258 and MSI H81-E33 (yes - baby-mATX) and carried over my GTX550Ti, all the drives - the only replacement was the PSU. I also noticed a not-insignificant performance gain - which I was NOT expecting. Such a setup should be the absolute floor for any upgrade from LGA775 - especially since you can do it on the cheap ($300USD including the PSU).
 

MightyMatt

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
532
Thank you all, I really appreciate the comments and suggestions! My experience with the CPU has been go for the latest, mid-range CPU and watch it last for years, due to being budget minded. Being out of keeping tabs of the Intel products and latest mobo's, what is the latest chip set for Intel based mobo's?
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,321
Search for Skylake i3 or i5 and also Z170.

Yup, Core i3 6100 and Core i5 6500 are your best bargain parts. They're separated by $80, so decide how much you want to invest. I'm of the mind that Core i5 lasts significantly longer than Core i3, but both will play today's games.

I'd say away from a Pentium.
 

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,931
Yup, Core i3 6100 and Core i5 6500 are your best bargain parts. They're separated by $80, so decide how much you want to invest. I'm of the mind that Core i5 lasts significantly longer than Core i3, but both will play today's games.

I'd say away from a Pentium.

You can score an i5 4590 for $159 in-store at Microcenter ;)
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,257
You've held on to your Q9550 this long, so you may as well hold out a while longer until you have the funds saved for a Z170, i5K, and some DDR4.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,321
You've held on to your Q9550 this long, so you may as well hold out a while longer until you have the funds saved for a Z170, i5K, and some DDR4.

Paying an extra 50 for the K may not be as necessary as it used to be, now that we have bus overclocking.
 

michalrz

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
3,301
The Q9550 is a monster, no denying that. With 12 megs of cache and overclockability (assuming you have the E0 revision and not C1) it looks like it should cut the cheese.
However this is the top of what LGA775 could do. you'd sidegrade even if you got a more punchy 3.x GHz Xeon.
But when I started putting together some i3 based computers I was surprised how more responsive the newer parts were. I was sold only after clicking IE to download Firefox. Snappier. Same clocks, four physical cores vs the i3 doing 4 threads... and I think for gaming I'd surely upgrade to the i's.
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
7,086
just me but i wouldn't touch anything less than 6 cores....would feel like I was going backwards:) Shouldn't be to long the newer games will them
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
18,776
I put my HTPC in the garage last year to use as a gaming setup and I ran the Q9550 at 3.4Ghz and it still was under powered playing BF4. All 4 cores would hit 100% constantly and game would stutter.
I broke down and built the 4790K setup for the garage and put the HTPC back upstairs in my room.

I just sold my Q9550/Asus mobo/8GB DDR3 ram for $150 the other day, so I would try and sell your setup and get a Skylake i3 or i5 setup.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
just me but i wouldn't touch anything less than 6 cores....would feel like I was going backwards:) Shouldn't be to long the newer games will them

I kinda doubt it.

In fact, so far, a grand total of ONE game - Ashes of the Singularity - is a multi-core certainty, and you don't need Skylake for it - any i5 will do, almost literally. At worst, you need Sandy Bridge, which has been dead how long? The bigger thing you want to avoid doing is going with less than 8GB of RAM with LGA11xx, because as long as you don't, you won't be lacking in any sort of performance with games, applications, or anything else. I run my G bone-stock, and with some of the slowest DDR3 for desktops historically - in fact, they don't even SHIP DDR3 for desktops this slow any more (in standard voltage) at a decent price. (While you can get it, 2x8GB EVGA DDR3-1600 makes better price sense.) On a per-core basis, Sandy Bridge and later are far more efficient than their Core 2 or Core counterparts - just don't starve them of RAM.
 

JNavy89GT

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
1,779
Yup, Core i3 6100 and Core i5 6500 are your best bargain parts. They're separated by $80, so decide how much you want to invest. I'm of the mind that Core i5 lasts significantly longer than Core i3, but both will play today's games.

I'd say away from a Pentium.
with the new Asrock bios's that allow bclck adjustments and oc'ing of non K cpus, I think the i3 or base i5 skylakes seem like the best bang for the $. I'm putting together a i3 6100/Asrock gaming4 Z170 board, and Gskill trident ddr4-3000 memory. It may replace my i5 2500k gaming setup @4.6ghz oc'd. If I can get similar clocks with the i3 @4.4-4.6ghz I'll probably use the new setup. Reasons being I only play CSGO for the most part and it's not really multi threaded to any great extent or at all. I'm having sound issues with my Asus soundcard in that Z77 setup, as the onboard wasn't strong enough for my headphones, and the boosted Asus likes to cause mic issues in game at random. A bit lower heat/power usage. Plus I just want to play with some new junk :).
 

mICKEL

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
259
I upgraded from a E5450 Xeon overclocked in a 775 board. At 4ghz it benches about like my Skylake i5 in many benchmarks. The real upgrades are in the rest of the system.
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
7,086
I kinda doubt it.

In fact, so far, a grand total of ONE game - Ashes of the Singularity - is a multi-core certainty, and you don't need Skylake for it - any i5 will do, almost literally. At worst, you need Sandy Bridge, which has been dead how long? The bigger thing you want to avoid doing is going with less than 8GB of RAM with LGA11xx, because as long as you don't, you won't be lacking in any sort of performance with games, applications, or anything else. I run my G bone-stock, and with some of the slowest DDR3 for desktops historically - in fact, they don't even SHIP DDR3 for desktops this slow any more (in standard voltage) at a decent price. (While you can get it, 2x8GB EVGA DDR3-1600 makes better price sense.) On a per-core basis, Sandy Bridge and later are far more efficient than their Core 2 or Core counterparts - just don't starve them of RAM.

i guess we disagree....bf4 (frostbite 3) easily already pushes 4 threads min...heck i was getting up to 70% usage in the beta battlefront.(with 12 threads lol) multi core use will only get more traction over time. I do agree having over 8 gbs of ram these days..win 10 does a good job of using the extra ram. I see mine going upwards of 8gb just playing bf4
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,321
i guess we disagree....bf4 (frostbite 3) easily already pushes 4 threads min...heck i was getting up to 70% usage in the beta battlefront.(with 12 threads lol) multi core use will only get more traction over time. I do agree having over 8 gbs of ram these days..win 10 does a good job of using the extra ram. I see mine going upwards of 8gb just playing bf4

And Fallout 4 scales above 4 threads as well. It just doesn't scale that well per-core, which is why a Core i3 matches an AMD 8 core.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
i guess we disagree....bf4 (frostbite 3) easily already pushes 4 threads min...heck i was getting up to 70% usage in the beta battlefront.(with 12 threads lol) multi core use will only get more traction over time. I do agree having over 8 gbs of ram these days..win 10 does a good job of using the extra ram. I see mine going upwards of 8gb just playing bf4

The issue in reality is not total threads (even on a per-application/per game basis) but threads per core per application/per game. If an application spins twenty threads, depending on the scheduling, it may still only need two cores depending on what the threads themselves do. Can Task Manager, or an alternative, keep track of thread generation/degeneration on a *historical* basis? Also, developers have to be able to actually count on the cores being available - and due to popularity (for price reasons) of i3 and lower, can that be counted on?
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,321
The issue in reality is not total threads (even on a per-application/per game basis) but threads per core per application/per game. If an application spins twenty threads, depending on the scheduling, it may still only need two cores depending on what the threads themselves do.

Classic problem: how much work do all these threads do?

Easy solution: add cores until the improvement starts to plateau. That is your major thread count.

Also, developers have to be able to actually count on the cores being available - and due to popularity (for price reasons) of i3 and lower, can that be counted on?

Or you can just be lazy. Fallout 4 uses about 6-8 major threads no matter how many cores you have, and as a result the pure dual-cores get pummeled in minimum frame rate.


But the Core i3s don't have this issue, so they're not overwhelmed. IT looks like it's the overhead from all those context switches on two cores. More native threads = less context switches.
 

coldpower27

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,154
Yeah time to update to current gen stuff, just went from i7 970 to i5 6500 and loving the new tech on the mobo that can fully take advantage of my SSD.

Yorkfield processor to Skylake is a massive upgrade and well worth it at this point for much greater efficiency.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
727
Bite the bullet and get: z77 , 2500k overclocked to 4.5, ssd, and 980ti. Good for the next 10 years because game graphics have plateaued, and developers do not know how/like to multithread past 4 cores/threads. Every processor more expensive than 2500k nets you 5% gain for hundreds more. We have directx 12 and developers are still using directx 9, so give it ten years and they will release dx12 games.
 

melk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
1,074
Bite the bullet and get: z77 , 2500k overclocked to 4.5, ssd, and 980ti. Good for the next 10 years because game graphics have plateaued, and developers do not know how/like to multithread past 4 cores/threads. Every processor more expensive than 2500k nets you 5% gain for hundreds more. We have directx 12 and developers are still using directx 9, so give it ten years and they will release dx12 games.

lol. While there is some truth to what you are saying... "upgrading" to a 5 year old chip that is now 4 Generations behind doesn't really seem like the best idea. Yes it will work "OK" but if you think it's going to provide anywhere near equal performance to a Skylake build with the same 980ti you are simply delusional.

I personally can't wait for this whole notion of "my 2600k is all I ever need!" to die and go away. It works great for you today with what you do? That's great! I hope it does last you another 5 years. But listening to the same people belly aching about "dismal" 5-10% IPC improvements since SandyBridge is really getting old to listen to, especially since it's been small but consistent IPC improvements with every generation since. IvyBridge, Haswell, Broadwell, and now Skylake which is an even bigger 10-15% bump. These are all cumulative. So hanging onto 5 year old tech / 4 generations behind with cries of "but it clocks to 4.9 ghz!!" just doesn't matter as much as it did a few years ago.
 
Last edited:

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,193
As others have said before, an update to modern hardware is likely the best bet. I know what its like to invest in those extra-special long lasting parts - my main rig was an i7 920 and X58, but I bit the bullet and now have a new enthusiast upgrade to X99 and a 5960X. However, the mainstream options are still solid too.

Thus you have 2 options - either the Enthusiast X99 platform (lots of PCI-E lanes, 6 and 8 core processors if you wish and other benefits, but the cost is considerable) or the Mainstream Z170 platform. The latter may be a bit more affordable though watch out, for some reason Skylake processors have been stupidly overpriced lately but they ought to be coming down. Both of these use DDR4 which is the new standard (X99 is quad channel and Z170 is dual channel) and surprisingly affordable. I suggest buying one of the Asus boards in your price range for quality, especially if you plan to overclock. If you can swing it, Asus ROG boards have been my go-to for years because they consistently have high quality components and lots of nice features. For the processor, its mostly what you can afford and what your needs may be but I suggest the "K" versions of the mainstream i5 and i7s for best overclockability.

Especially if you're interested in Star Citizen which is one of the games that will push the envelope graphically if your hardware is up to it (and note that the alpha versions are heavy on the resources at the moment being unoptimized), I think you'll be very happy with such an upgrade. If you'd like my detail just let us know and we can help you with a build that will bring you another long running, powerful system.
 

arestavo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,672
lol. While there is some truth to what you are saying... "upgrading" to a 5 year old chip that is now 4 Generations behind doesn't really seem like the best idea. Yes it will work "OK" but if you think it's going to provide anywhere near equal performance to a Skylake build with the same 980ti you are simply delusional.

I personally can't wait for this whole notion of "my 2600k is all I ever need!" to die and go away. It works great for you today with what you do? That's great! I hope it does last you another 5 years. But listening to the same people belly aching about "dismal" 5-10% IPC improvements since SandyBridge is really getting old to listen to, especially since it's been small but consistent IPC improvements with every generation since. IvyBridge, Haswell, Broadwell, and now Skylake which is an even bigger 10-15% bump. These are all cumulative. So hanging onto 5 year old tech / 4 generations behind with cries of "but it clocks to 4.9 ghz!!" just doesn't matter as much as it did a few years ago.

Well, because it is true. It's not really belly-aching if is as real as a bear shitting in the woods.

DDR3 to DDR4 comparison (this was expected, and the same was true for DDR2 to DDR3)

Sandy to Skylake gaming comparison without overeclocks
(Minimum frame rates are where Skylake will help for those with 144Hz monitors, but that isn't important with a Gsync monitor or much less important with a 60Hz panel)

Overclocked gaming comparison up through Haswell (Ditto)

Long story short - Just shut up and overclock your "old" chip and enjoy gaming ***almost*** as good as anything out today. And for those that are whinging about how their new Skylake chip is so much better than the older generations - well, sure... if you play at 1280X720!
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Well, because it is true. It's not really belly-aching if is as real as a bear shitting in the woods.

DDR3 to DDR4 comparison (this was expected, and the same was true for DDR2 to DDR3)

Sandy to Skylake gaming comparison without overeclocks
(Minimum frame rates are where Skylake will help for those with 144Hz monitors, but that isn't important with a Gsync monitor or much less important with a 60Hz panel)

Overclocked gaming comparison up through Haswell (Ditto)

Long story short - Just shut up and overclock your "old" chip and enjoy gaming ***almost*** as good as anything out today. And for those that are whinging about how their new Skylake chip is so much better than the older generations - well, sure... if you play at 1280X720!

Wow for starters they choice the shittiest DDR4 RAM possible. That test was made to fail! Test again with 3000MTs 15 CL and you will see the DDR4 is better. Seriously, 15CL on 2133...are you fucking serious? Also if I read it right they put the DDR4 in 2T...really? What garbage are you posting and why the fuck did they post the most ridiculous intellectually dishonest review ever?

Second, Skylake is 25% faster IIRC of my head in IPC so a 4.8GHz SKL vs a 4.8GHz SB will get rekt hardcore and for good reason. 25% more single thread is massive. Only reason you wont go SKL is if you got a 4.8GHz haswell or higher.

You posted the most ridiculous flat out bullshit I have ever seen. I felt like I was reading some hippy GMO/fake sugar article. Seriously, the level of WTF I just read is off the charts!!!

I am subscribing to this becuase this is freaking hilarious. The trolling you are doing is making my fucking day....wow
 

arestavo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,672
Wow for starters they choice the shittiest DDR4 RAM possible. That test was made to fail! Test again with 3000MTs 15 CL and you will see the DDR4 is better. Seriously, 15CL on 2133...are you fucking serious? Also if I read it right they put the DDR4 in 2T...really? What garbage are you posting and why the fuck did they post the most ridiculous intellectually dishonest review ever?

Second, Skylake is 25% faster IIRC of my head in IPC so a 4.8GHz SKL vs a 4.8GHz SB will get rekt hardcore and for good reason. 25% more single thread is massive. Only reason you wont go SKL is if you got a 4.8GHz haswell or higher.

You posted the most ridiculous flat out bullshit I have ever seen. I felt like I was reading some hippy GMO/fake sugar article. Seriously, the level of WTF I just read is off the charts!!!

I am subscribing to this becuase this is freaking hilarious. The trolling you are doing is making my fucking day....wow

Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Turn off the fanboy. It's not trolling. If you bother to go through the articles linked you WILL see that the newer chips are better - but not so much for gaming.

Here - watch this (Number on the left is current FPS, number on the right is average):
Stock Generational Comparison
Overclocked Generational Comparison

Did you watch it? Did you see the FPS averages and minimums? Did you see that was I pointed out in my first post was correct?

Again, upgrading to a newer chipset is not required unless you want/need high minimum frame rates for higher Hz monitors - which is negated completly if you own a GSync monitor, and lessened considerably if you only game at 60Hz.

giphy.gif
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
Long story short - Just shut up and overclock your "old" chip and enjoy gaming ***almost*** as good as anything out today. And for those that are whinging about how their new Skylake chip is so much better than the older generations - well, sure... if you play at 1280X720!

you are right, it is almost as good as today's stuff, but that is only for a few situations and certainly won't hold up for 10 years longer.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Turn off the fanboy. It's not trolling. If you bother to go through the articles linked you WILL see that the newer chips are better - but not so much for gaming.

Here - watch this (Number on the left is current FPS, number on the right is average):
Stock Generational Comparison
Overclocked Generational Comparison

Did you watch it? Did you see the FPS averages and minimums? Did you see that was I pointed out in my first post was correct?

Again, upgrading to a newer chipset is not required unless you want/need high minimum frame rates for higher Hz monitors - which is negated completly if you own a GSync monitor, and lessened considerably if you only game at 60Hz.

giphy.gif

Fanboy to what? Marveling at the load of shit coming out of your mouth? No specification of the type of RAM they are using and plenty of other specs not stated that can easily be used to give BS results.

Second, it picks the 4 games that are actually threaded? You do realize that majority of games are still single thread right? How about they actually do a test of the games that are still single/dual thread and not the 4 AAA games that come out every year?

So again you are spewing crap. Missing valid data on system specs and cherry picking the 4 games that are not programed like shit. So good job you know how to cherry pick and spew bullshit :rolleyes:

oh here I can use stupid memes too
wtf_o_1215252.jpg
 

arestavo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,672
Fanboy to what? Marveling at the load of shit coming out of your mouth? No specification of the type of RAM they are using and plenty of other specs not stated that can easily be used to give BS results.

Second, it picks the 4 games that are actually threaded? You do realize that majority of games are still single thread right? How about they actually do a test of the games that are still single/dual thread and not the 4 AAA games that come out every year?

So again you are spewing crap. Missing valid data on system specs and cherry picking the 4 games that are not programed like shit. So good job you know how to cherry pick and spew bullshit :rolleyes:

oh here I can use stupid memes too
wtf_o_1215252.jpg

I see I still can't fix stupid. And for that, good day - enjoy your life, because I won't be back to this thread waste a single second more.
 

mICKEL

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
259
Bite the bullet and get: z77 , 2500k overclocked to 4.5, ssd, and 980ti. Good for the next 10 years because game graphics have plateaued, and developers do not know how/like to multithread past 4 cores/threads. Every processor more expensive than 2500k nets you 5% gain for hundreds more. We have directx 12 and developers are still using directx 9, so give it ten years and they will release dx12 games.
Here is a interesting review with benchmarks showing an overclocked Skylake i3 pretty much matching a i5 2500k clock for clock.
http://pclab.pl/art67575-4.html
 

coldpower27

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,154
As others have said before, an update to modern hardware is likely the best bet. I know what its like to invest in those extra-special long lasting parts - my main rig was an i7 920 and X58, but I bit the bullet and now have a new enthusiast upgrade to X99 and a 5960X. However, the mainstream options are still solid too.

Thus you have 2 options - either the Enthusiast X99 platform (lots of PCI-E lanes, 6 and 8 core processors if you wish and other benefits, but the cost is considerable) or the Mainstream Z170 platform. The latter may be a bit more affordable though watch out, for some reason Skylake processors have been stupidly overpriced lately but they ought to be coming down. Both of these use DDR4 which is the new standard (X99 is quad channel and Z170 is dual channel) and surprisingly affordable. I suggest buying one of the Asus boards in your price range for quality, especially if you plan to overclock. If you can swing it, Asus ROG boards have been my go-to for years because they consistently have high quality components and lots of nice features. For the processor, its mostly what you can afford and what your needs may be but I suggest the "K" versions of the mainstream i5 and i7s for best overclockability.

Especially if you're interested in Star Citizen which is one of the games that will push the envelope graphically if your hardware is up to it (and note that the alpha versions are heavy on the resources at the moment being unoptimized), I think you'll be very happy with such an upgrade. If you'd like my detail just let us know and we can help you with a build that will bring you another long running, powerful system.

Wow very nice! I considered getting the i7 5930K as an upgrade, but I find I don't use all that power so energy efficient computing is where it's at.

Depending on if I can get a deal on a Broadwell-E/Skylake-E when they actually arrive. Hopefully all the performance improvements and power efficiency will translate to the enthusiast platform too. :)
 

shaggy77

Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
765
I have not reflected my updated signature but I have replaced my venerable Q9550 with a i5-6600K. Outside of really annoying parts of the build, once it was completed this afternoon, this new computer flies. I will determine my happiness in a few days of final set up and tinkering. However, the new features of USB 3.0 and proper SATA 3 ports, I can already feel a difference in using the computer.
 

coldpower27

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,154
I have not reflected my updated signature but I have replaced my venerable Q9550 with a i5-6600K. Outside of really annoying parts of the build, once it was completed this afternoon, this new computer flies. I will determine my happiness in a few days of final set up and tinkering. However, the new features of USB 3.0 and proper SATA 3 ports, I can already feel a difference in using the computer.

Yeah I felt a big difference in booting time for sure with Z170 the new SATA3 ports help tremendously over my X58 platform before. Really lets the Intel 730 drive stretch it's legs.

Really love the temps now that I have seated the heatsink properly. 5-8 C over ambient for idle and ~50-55C at load. This is with the Intel Stock HSF and OCZ Ultra 5+ Thermal Paste.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Turn off the fanboy. It's not trolling. If you bother to go through the articles linked you WILL see that the newer chips are better - but not so much for gaming.

Here - watch this (Number on the left is current FPS, number on the right is average):
Stock Generational Comparison
Overclocked Generational Comparison

Did you watch it? Did you see the FPS averages and minimums? Did you see that was I pointed out in my first post was correct?

Again, upgrading to a newer chipset is not required unless you want/need high minimum frame rates for higher Hz monitors - which is negated completly if you own a GSync monitor, and lessened considerably if you only game at 60Hz.

giphy.gif

I went from Q6600 (seminal quad-core) to what I have now, and expected to - at best - break-even. While my RAM doubled, my core count was halved - all the other components were carryover. So how come I'm doing better in everything?

And this is stock vs. stock.

While G3258 + H81 supports overclockage, I have to have a reason TO overclock - so far, I haven't found a reason to - and likely won't until Ashes of the Singularity ships 1.1 code.
I have a 60 Hz display - which means that taller than 60 fps is NOT necessarily on the schedule at this point. And I can maintain 60 fps reliably on at least Medium LOD, if not High LOD - which Q6600 could not do.
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,452
I went from Q6600 (seminal quad-core) to what I have now, and expected to - at best - break-even. While my RAM doubled, my core count was halved - all the other components were carryover. So how come I'm doing better in everything?

And this is stock vs. stock.

While G3258 + H81 supports overclockage, I have to have a reason TO overclock - so far, I haven't found a reason to - and likely won't until Ashes of the Singularity ships 1.1 code.
I have a 60 Hz display - which means that taller than 60 fps is NOT necessarily on the schedule at this point. And I can maintain 60 fps reliably on at least Medium LOD, if not High LOD - which Q6600 could not do.

Probably you haven't played Dragon Age Inquisition right? or Hitman Absolution? Watch Dogs? or Crysis 3? or Far Cry 3/4? or GTA V? or Shadow of Mordor? or Fallout 4? or The Witcher 3? and a big large list of games..

Man, Dual core sucks for anything more than regular office work, you can say whatever about FramePerSeconds but no about FrameTimes which its the big hurt in Dual Cores, man you won't even be able to launch Far Cry 4. yes, the G3258 its fas for everyday usage but no for really gaming.. I really don't understand why you are so amazed with that chip, why become so fanboy and G3258 defender, have you used any true recent intel quad core chip? I have built around 30+ machines for clients with Pentium Dual Core chips, tested everyone of them, probably I know isn't much what you can do with that oldie GTX 550TI, but any modern GPU even in mid range tiers are seriously bottlenecked in most (if not all) recent and modern games even at 1080P.. the fact that you are way GPU bottlenecked before CPU bottleneck doesn't mean that it will be the same experience with any other guy with a more recent or powerful GPU than what you are using.
 
Top