Enjin Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 The i7 will be the Best and the Fastest as always. a phenom II will be a good step Up for you and like you said. It will be a bang for your buck. and With a decent cooler it runs up to 3.6 with Minimal headach. But if you want the Best of the Best go with the I7 thanks for the help guys, I think Im just gonna go with the 9650. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK_ Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 thanks for the help guys, I think Im just gonna go with the 9650. wow , you should have asked me , we basicly have the same rig just the cpu up from mine - Crysis is a computer eater Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) I know that man..."MAXIMUM GAME" it's not like they are trying to pull a fast one on us...LOL again, like I said, the 9550 would have been a better choice to start off with, but the platform IS done..I already have the Q9400. It's a used chip...too late man If Im gonna upgrade there is no sense wasting my time trying to sell off a used Q9400, paying more for cooler, changing my ram, THEN paying for a chip that is only slightly better than what I have right now. With the Q9650, I could probably get away with 3.4Ghz using the factory cooler... my chip fails the burntest at 3.0ghz btw..so if I wanna keep it here long term ill have to get a better cooler.. anywho, Im sure you can see by now that it just doesn't make sense for me to go out and buy a Q9450 or even a Q9550 at this point? That is the strangest logic I think I've ever seen, you complain about money going to waste with the Q9400 yet you want to waste a ton of money on a Q9650 **I'm telling you** just because one is alot cheaper doesn't make it bad. Your chip is a good one too, it just doesn't have as much cache as the Q9*50's. If you insist on blowing money, you could actually buy a whole *better* phenom II rig for the price of just the Q9650, that's how much of a rip that chip is. You'd be making a big mistake to get the Q9650. Either get the Q9550 or an entirely new phenmo II machine. (if cooling is really that big of an issue the money saved from getting the Q9550 from the Q9650 could buy you 2 or 3 of my TRUE air coolers) Edited August 18, 2009 by IVIYTH0S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enjin Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 That is the strangest logic I think I've ever seen, you complain about money going to waste with the Q9400 yet you want to waste a ton of money on a Q9650 **I'm telling you** just because one is alot cheaper doesn't make it bad. Your chip is a good one too, it just doesn't have as much cache as the Q9*50's. If you insist on blowing money, you could actually buy a whole *better* phenom II rig for the price of just the Q9650, that's how much of a rip that chip is. You'd be making a big mistake to get the Q9650. Either get the Q9550 or an entirely new phenmo II machine. (if cooling is really that big of an issue the money saved from getting the Q9550 from the Q9650 could buy you 2 or 3 of my TRUE air coolers) any logic seems strange to someone who is completely incapable of it...Lolz... Nice machine KK_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seriphx Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) The X-Box 360 comes with a dual core 3.2 processor, so I figure If I get the 3.0 and Overclock it to 3.4-3.6 I should be able to play almost any game for the next little while. Sorry to burst any bubbles or hopes but the Xbox 360 has a Tri-core 3.2Ghz setup. Edited August 19, 2009 by Seriphx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E.A Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 any logic seems strange to someone who is completely incapable of it...Lolz... Nice machine KK_ i agree with IVIYTH0S ...phenom ii are not as expensive as c2q but that does not mean they are slower than them ...it is like ATI and nvidia 4870x2 is less expensive than gtx 295 ..but these 2 will perform very closely..the same with 4870 & gtx 260 ...gtx 260 is more expensive but 4870 is faster...so phenom ii are very very good...i am getting one myself though i have i7 ..but i saw x4 955 in action i have not noticed any diffrence .....and you q9400 is very good you don`t need to upgrade it ...if you want to upgrade get phenom ii ( x4 : 955 .965) these are powerfull or i7 ...if you go with c2q agian you will be in a no upgrade path .... the whole point is : do not waste your money... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK_ Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 i agree with IVIYTH0S ...phenom ii are not as expensive as c2q but that does not mean they are slower than them ...it is like ATI and nvidia 4870x2 is less expensive than gtx 295 ..but these 2 will perform very closely..the same with 4870 & gtx 260 ...gtx 260 is more expensive but 4870 is faster...so phenom ii are very very good...i am getting one myself though i have i7 ..but i saw x4 955 in action i have not noticed any diffrence .....and you q9400 is very good you don`t need to upgrade it ...if you want to upgrade get phenom ii ( x4 : 955 .965) these are powerfull or i7 ...if you go with c2q agian you will be in a no upgrade path .... the whole point is : do not waste your money... add in the cost of a new mobo it normally works out the same . but i wouldn't bother going for anything c2q , the only real upgrade is to i7 , thats basically it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E.A Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 add in the cost of a new mobo it normally works out the same . but i wouldn't bother going for anything c2q , the only real upgrade is to i7 , thats basically it agreed .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) add in the cost of a new mobo it normally works out the same . but i wouldn't bother going for anything c2q , the only real upgrade is to i7 , thats basically it well yeah, but I merely mean that it'd be silly to spend Q9650 prices on a dead socket, i mean it's MORE expensive than the 920 i7 and it certainly shouldn't be. The Q9550 should be like $160 and the Q9650 like $180-$190 ideally. That's the price in which they perform like (and that's being generous). I7 is truly the only worthwhile upgrade here indeed Edited August 19, 2009 by IVIYTH0S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enjin Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Sorry to burst any bubbles or hopes but the Xbox 360 has a Tri-core 3.2Ghz setup. Q9650 is QUAD 3.0, and will be QUAD 3.4 no apology necessary seriously though guys...I said like 10 posts ago that I was just gonna get the 9650... I already bought the computer..due to money restrictions, The Q9400 was the fastest ship I could afford at the time. The computer is 3 months old...Im NOT about to throw it all away and start over with an i7. Sorry to burst your guys' bubbles i7 may be a faster chip, but there are hardly any games that even use quads...most are for dual cores...so why would I spend money on a chip that takes 8 THREADS? thats totally overkill... I have programmed a few small game engines as a hobby, so I know what goes into them, and the fact is, that there really isn't much to be gained by further parralellizing in terms of the CPU. It's the top speed of the CPU that comes into play, not bandwidth. Bandwidth is DEFINATELY a factor however for the GPU, or on a graphics card, because the exact same 5-10 calculations need to be done for each of the 1920x1080= 2073600 pixels, and 1,000,000+ triangles each frame. A situation that would warrant further parrallelization in terms of CPU would exceed the memory limitations of even the largest graphics card at this time. Anywho, I could babel for hours about this junk, but alas I'm here to ask one question! When I restart in 20 minutes, and I have my Q9650 in, can I overclock it right away? or should I let it warm up for a few hours? you know like when you put a boiling hot plate under cold water what happens? lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rourkchris Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Yes you should overclock it right away. After all it went so well the last time . I'd tell you to learn a little more before you start that again but it would be a waste... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enjin Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) Yes you should overclock it right away. After all it went so well the last time . I'd tell you to learn a little more before you start that again but it would be a waste... ugh...I got the chip in, but the lowest the temp ran was 37 on one core...the others were 38, 38 and 39...isn't that a little warm even with the factory heatsink? on my 2.66 I was running at 33s across all the cores =/ And Intel burn test had 3 cores hitting 81 degrees at stock settings when the thermal spec is 71.4 degrees... Think I installed the heatsink wrong or something? Edited August 19, 2009 by Enjin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now