Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505S or Q8400S?

I'm planning on buying one of them for BF3 and other games. I also want to know which one will be better if I overclock to 3.5/4.0ghz.




Thanks in advance.

 

That depends on what price you can get them for. Another upgrade which will be a must is more RAM, 2gb isn't really enough, but keep in mind that will require a 64-bit OS. Also its somewhat important to match the CPU to the GPU, in a way. In other words, the fastest CPU in the world won't do you much good if the 250GTS, which is quite a low end video card, can't keep up, or your RAM is struggling due to it being 2gb.

Basically you can't shortchange on one and expect the other to take up the slack. If you want to run BF3 etc, then an upgrade of the video card, cpu, and RAM would be advisable, as long as the price is right.

For example, the Q9505S in theory would be better, but if it costs more then you can use that money to get more RAM and put towards a graphics card. I don't mean getting a GTX580 or HD6990 or anything, just something which will help you over a GTS 250.

For the GPU, check out:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/vga-charts-spring-2011/

Remember you have the GTS 250, but check out the scores for the GTS 450.

Also remember your video card does NOT have Directx 11 support, and BF3 will shine with Directx 11. Running in Directx 10 mode could possible be slower for the equivalent graphics level too (excluding Directx 11 effects of course).

 

Price? But Q9505s would be better

 

I've a 4gb ram, and my graphic card should be good enuff for DX10/mid-high settings.

My first choice was a Q9550S but it was sold out in ebay. My second choice is the Q9505S which costs about £129.99 in ebay. Anyways am wondering if I can overclock that Q9505S....

Future RIG (for now):
Q9505S 2.8ghz maybe OC to 3.5ghz
250 GTS
4GB RAM
WIN7 32bit

Hoping for 60+ fps on mid/high settings.

@thatguy91 what you mean I need a 64bit ?

 

A 32-bit OS, thats any 32-bit OS, is limited to 4GB of address space. This address space is not only used by the RAM, but also for the graphics RAM and non RAM related device addressing. Overall, this limits the amount of RAM you can actually utilise, and this depends on the amount of RAM your video card has. For example a 512mb video card plus address space for other devices you'll be limited to 3.3GB or useable RAM. For a 1GB card, roughly 2.7GB useable RAM, etc.

You might get away with the RAM, but sorry to say the graphics card won't be enough for Directx 10 at mid to high settings with 60+ fps.

Of course newer CPU's might give you better FPS, but the Q9505S will be quite capable, especially if you run it on at least a 400fsb (which you do when overclocking anyway).

Your limited factor is definitely the video card, if you do magically get 60+ fps at mid to high settings in BF3, it means the graphics settings are crippling it elsewhere. Even if your video card was fast enough, 512mb of video RAM won't nearly be enough. If you video card is 1GB, it means you can only use around 2.7GB of system RAM (it might be reported as 4GB installed, but only around 2.7GB would be useable with a 1GB video card).

The Q8400 is effectively a crippled Q9400, which is turn is effectively a crippled Q9450. The main differences is the amount of L2 cache. The Q8400 has 2x2mb, Q9400 has 2x3mb, and the Q9450 has 2x6mb L2 cache.

The Q9505S is also a 2x3mb chip, quite similar to the Q9400 however runs at a 8.5 multiplier instead of 8x. I don't know how much the Q8400 is going for, but it was never an expensive CPU to begin with, made cheaper by the reduced L2 cache.

The difference between the Q9400 and Q9450 can be overcome to some degree by overclocking, but the Q8400 is just that little too much crippled, but it depends on what price you can get it for. If the price is fairly close definitely opt for a Q9505S over a Q8400.

But like I was saying earlier, very wishful thinking if you believe you will get 60fps+ at mid-high settings in BF3 or other graphically intense Directx 10/11 games. Remember also Directx 11 includes the Directx 10.1 fixes, which were to resolve the performance issues with Directx 10. Nvidia didn't support Directx 10 for a very very long time and held games back from using them since that would have given ATI (at the time) a big advantage. As a result, Directx 10.1 is very rarely if at all utilised and you're stuck with Directx 10, which I can guarantee you won't be able to run BF3 on with that card.

However, like I said earlier, at least a 1GB Directx 11 card will give BF3 a massive boost, but running that with a 32-bit OS may mean RAM will become the limiting factor, depending on the system load of the game. The game is said to be properly 64-bit optimised, which would suggest an actual 64-bit version of it...

In any case, if you do manage to play the game on that video card and 32-bit at a playable framerate, you will have to cripple the graphics quality. Limiting it to Directx 10 which you have to, is in itself already crippling the quality.

Basically what I am saying is a new CPU won't help you play BF3 any better unless you get a better video card, which will require you to run x64 Windows!

A GTS 450 1GB card, at high settings manages only 21fps in BF2 Bad Company 2 according to the Guru3D video charts. Although the game isn't fully Directx 11, it does make use of the better performance, so in Directx 10 mode that number will actually be lower.

Those tests are also done on a Core i7 965 @ 3750 MHz, with 6144 MB (3x 2048 MB) DDR3 Corsair @ 1500 MHz. In other words, this will also mean the fps recorded will be higher than your system, even with a (Q9505S heavily overclocked)!

 

I should also add that if you are running Windows XP, BF3 will NOT run at all as it does not support Directx 9. If you do have Windows XP, any game you have been running so far (even if its a Directx 10/11 game), would only have been running in Directx 9 mode, as all Directx 10/11 games until BF3 also support Directx 9.

They're dropping Directx 9 as its becoming much less common now people have Windows 7, and it means they can spend more time properly utilising Directx 10 and especially Directx 11.

 

What you think?

Plan A:
Q9505S OC 3.0ghz+
250 GTS
4GB RAM
WIN7 32bit

Plan B:
Q9505S OC 3.5ghz+
Any top AMD/Nvidia DX11 card
4GB RAM
WIN7 64bit

 

uke2:Look into a used q9650 it will hit 4.0 NP. The s models. You re looking at cost more as they are reduced Watt chips also look for an e0 q9650/9550. The need less voltage than c1 chips

 

When i was using my Q8400 @ 2.66 a massive bottleneck (sorry about english) with my ex-2x 5770 ( 1 died 3 days ago ) when i got my i5 2500k with just 1 5770 im getting more FPS than before with 2 lol dont go for Q8400 or OC it as much as you can and the Q95xx too

 

Definitely plan B!
The Q9505S should tick along nicely at 3.3Ghz without too many hassles, above that you have to start thinking of temperatures of the cpu and motherboard chipset etc (depending on where you are of course)!

You don't necessarily need a ultra high end card, just something that will enable you to play the recent games. An AMD HD6950 is a good choice currently and can be unlocked to HD6970 (read the threads on here relating to that though, not all HD6950 cards can be unlocked). If thats a little costly you can go for something lighter, but if you go below a HD6850 you are really limiting performance, and if the cost of the HD6850/HD6870 isn't too far off the HD6950 the HD6950 would be a far superior choice, even if you don't unlock it.

In terms of Nvidia, the best choice performance vs price would be a GTX 560. The GTX 570 is quite a bit more expensive, and the GTX 550 TI is only about 65 percent as powerful as the GTX 560.

The HD6950 is more powerful than the GTX 560 though, especially after you unlock it the 2gb version is better for unlocking, and the extra video memory will probably come in useful with BF3 and other future games.

Also consider you power supply, a cheap nasty one possibly won't like overclocking a Q9505S, let alone using a high end card.

Your plan B, although wouldn't be as fast as an i7 2500K with 8GB ram etc, would still be a very capable gaming rig and serve you well Like I was saying, with your plan A you will get some improvement, but I use the term 'some' very cautiously here as in most games it would only just be noticeable. With a much faster GPU, the difference between the two CPU's would be a lot more apparent.

I realise the thing about upgrading is cost, but plan A won't give you want you want, plan B will co

 

Agreed, like I was pointing out in my first post of this thread the Q8xxx's are just a little too crippled, and the 'Core 2' design requires that cache.

I agree, if you can get a Q9450, Q9550, or Q9650 definitely get it (just hope it wasn't bastardised when it came to overclocking). These are actually the 'as designed' second gen Core 2 Quad core cpu's, and the cache is there for a reason! The only reason why they brought out the Q9x00 and Q8xxx cpu's was reduced costs to the end user.

The Q9400's/Q950S's etc aren't too crippled, although they perform a little less than the Q9x50 CPU's they aren't too bad... its the Q8xxx cpu's that are crippled. Like I was saying earlier, setting a higher FSB and the Q9505s etc peform quite well in terms of being close in comparison to the Q9x50's.

The risk you have getting a Q9x50 CPU is how it was treated. The Q9505S is the most recent CPU and probably the least utilised when it comes to overclocking as most people wanting speed by then had moved onto the i7 920 etc.

Of course, don't spend a lot on the CPU, and NEVER get an engineering sample. A quick look on Ebay I see a couple of Q9505S's, some are labelled as engineering samples (ES) but they probably all are...

In the first place they aren't meant to be sold, and secondly they are a development CPU, they probably won't perform as well as proper CPU's.

 

yeah, with a Q8xxx you need tons of FSB to get it to 3000 ghz i was using 380 to get 2.66 maybe 450 to 3.3? no way... worst CPU i have ever bought lol ( okay i was using a PD945@4.3 before )

 

I'll try Plan A first and test on Battlefield 3. If not successful, I will get the best card under £150 maybe a HD6850.

btw I have a ANTEC 500w and wondering if it's capable of handling the Q9505S with HD6850 or without it.

 

Which model and how old is it?

 

btw that S stands for lower power consumption, 65w? instead of 95w, but its more $$ because of it..

and ~ 3.8ghz should be possible with that Q9505 (that's 448mhz fsb)..


edit: and go with plan B, + at least AMD6870

well i had 250gts before and in BFBC2 slowed down to low 40ish fps @ 1280x1024 no aa, no hdao, rest maxed.. Compared to 570gtx min 70-80fps avg ~ 120fps, with max settings and forced 16xqaa in nvcpl profile..

 

It's a Antec Earthwatts 500w 80-Plus.

btw I can find a AMD 6870 under £150 easily but first I test my 250gts. Anyways anyone know where I could find a high-end small/meduim sized cpu cooler. I've a CoolerMaster 330 Mid-tower case with a Asus P5N7A-VM mobo.

Best one I think I could find which possibly can fit in = http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zalman-CNPS...EV4O/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1314426323&sr=8-6

hmmm??

 

with my ex Q8400 and 2x5770 at 1920x1080 no AA (everything on max )> 25~40 FPS

 

Yeah it should be no problem at all 6850 only needs on 6 pin pci-express plug, how ever I would recommend getting at least 6870. There is still a lot of headroom for graphics. I would save my money for a little longer for closer to bf3 release and get a card you won't have to replace for at least a couple of years.

 

Isn't it better to buy a Sandy Bridge CPU instead?

I suggest you save up money as long as you can. Put your settings little lower. And try overclocking your CPU.

When I look at benchmarks... Those CPU's are only marginally faster than your current...

Either buy a i5-2500k or i7-2600k with new mobo and ram or do nothing. That's my suggestion... IT isn't really worth the marginal performance increase

 

Going from what he has got to a Q9xxx CPU and new video card (HD 6870 for example) won't be just a marginal performance increase.

The problem with going for an i5-2500K or i7-2600k is that you will need:
- A new motherboard
- The cpu
- The graphics card
- An aftermarket CPU cooler (which he should get anyway, even if its value Hyper 212+)
- New RAM
- New power supply
...

Its essentially a whole new computer! what he wants is a simple upgrade that won't cost too much, although I do agree the benefits depends on hope much he can get that Q9xxx CPU for.