QX9650 vs Q9450

[Merkwürdigliebe]

Okay, so I understand the the QX9650 is essentially a Q9450 with an unlocked multiplier, right? So is it safe to take the QX9650 benchmarks as almost reflecting the future results of the Q9450?

If that's the case, can anybody point me to some reliable QX9450 benchmarks? The ones I'm finding are quite underwhelming and don't show that much of a difference from the Q6600 in gaming, well, at least, not really worth the wait or the extra money.

I'm sorry, I just haven't really straightened out my understanding of this one yet.

[vernong1992]

I'm getting same stuff.. the q9450 has little edge on the q6600.... performance wise... maybe somebody has tempy Benchies.,.

EDIT: Kind of On but Off Topic... Have u seen the qx9770 power consumption compared to qx9650.. OUCH

[Peter.Cort]

the only differences are the qx9650 (and i guess the q9650) and the q6600 are the l2 cache, temps, initial clock speed, and FSB. but i think the only major difference is gonna be the temps so it can overclock higher and cost less on your electric bill

why is it that gfx cards make sense in the way the name them and cpu's don't?!?! E.G.
-GPU-
fx 5200
6600 LE
7950 GT
8800GT
9800GTX

-CPU-
P1
P2
P3
P4
PD
e2xxx
e4xxx
e6xxx
q6xxx
q9xxx

There's no cohesive pattern in the way they do cpus! but gfx makes sense...

[Merkwürdigliebe]

Whoah, I don't know about that. Graphics cards have been getting pretty funky. Like the GT being better than the 640 and 320 GTS, but the 512 GTS (G92) is better than the GT and GTX and almost an Ultra... wtf

Then you have ATI/AMD jumping to a new generation number, from 2xxx to 3xxx with no significant leap in technology... doesn't make any sense at all, the the HD3850 and HD3870 should've been named the 2920PRO and the 2950XT, or something similar. Jumping the numbers like that is stupid.

Back on topic though, I'm itching to buy a computer now. I mean, January release for the Q9xxx could mean anything, could be end of January!!! I mean, should I just get a Q6600 now?

[Peter.Cort]

if your gonna upgrade cpu atleast make a worth while jump and get a q9xxx to be in the loop w/ a 9xxx series gpu or a 8800 GTS G92 revision. throw some ddr3 on that bad boy and you'll be golden.

also going back to the labeling techniques, atleast they are staying in order and going in consecutive numbers. Intel seems to have missed first and second grade where they learned it goes 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9, not 2-4-6-9

[KingAustin]

Originally Posted by Peter.Cort

Intel seems to have missed first and second grade where they learned it goes 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9, not 2-4-6-9

But seemed to have mastered electrical and computer engineering in the mean time.

[Invisible]

Originally Posted by vernong1992

EDIT: Kind of On but Off Topic... Have u seen the qx9770 power consumption compared to qx9650.. OUCH

well think about it, the majority of enthusiasts who are going to buy the qx9770 aren't going to have your everyday 35-45 AMp 12v psu's, power shouldn't be an issue as the 750 silencer is a popular one among extreme enthusiasts

[vernong1992]

true.. but I'll probably never buy a EE processor ever.. sticking with q9450 thank you very much xD

[thirdshiftdj]

Originally Posted by Merkwürdigliebe

the HD3850 and HD3870 should've been named the 2920PRO and the 2950XT, or something similar.

They wanted to get rid of all the suffixes like xtx, xt and pro. It was too confusing

[Peter.Cort]

it really is, also with the nvidia cards where it makes sense that the gts is at the bottom, then comes the gtx then comes the ultra, but then they threw the gt in there which leads you to believe that it sucks cause its a gt and its cheap when in reality its better then the gts and the gtx.