• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

QX9650 vs QX6850 vs E8500

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Ninth

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Allright, here's the deal. These are merely the three procs I have looked at so far as prospectives for a relatively high end gaming comp. I've read a few reviews, namely the AnandTech on the QX procs stating that you aren't gaining much by the 45 nm vs 65, except about 100$. Secondly, are the possible 4-4.2 GHZ overclocks overkill as compared to what is possibile with the E8500? (A proc which I've known to get good reviews from in the past).

Any help/advice would be welcome, as would other potential cpu's.
 
Allright, here's the deal. These are merely the three procs I have looked at so far as prospectives for a relatively high end gaming comp. I've read a few reviews, namely the AnandTech on the QX procs stating that you aren't gaining much by the 45 nm vs 65, except about 100$. Secondly, are the possible 4-4.2 GHZ overclocks overkill as compared to what is possibile with the E8500? (A proc which I've known to get good reviews from in the past).

Any help/advice would be welcome, as would other potential cpu's.

If you just want to game, save yourself $800-900 and wait for E8500, which by the looks of ES will pretty easily do 4.5Ghz on air, because at the time, there are few to no games that use 4 cores.
 
If you just want to game, save yourself $800-900 and wait for E8500, which by the looks of ES will pretty easily do 4.5Ghz on air, because at the time, there are few to no games that use 4 cores.

sounds pretty sensible to me
 
Anyone is good just that some games will eventually take advantage of quads but most likely it will be in a few years and not anytime soon. At this point if you plan on keeping the system for a few years I would just get a quad. There is a threshold if I am not mistaken. I think it is 3.2ghz where at this speed is offer optimal performance. That means that you can probably get better frames in most games but the differences is not noticeable. You can score better in 3dmark and yes some games will benefit from higher clocks but at 3.2ghz in almost every game FPS is already optomized to the point that higher clocks won't make a recognizable difference. For instance 70 frames at 3.2ghz may give you 80 frames at 4ghz. Or 100 frames may give you 120 frames which the human eye really can't make out the difference over 70 frames(?) SOME games like Crysis will definately see an improvement because of how harsh the engine is on todays systems where maybe at higher clocks you can get 50 as opposed to 40 and then the difference is noticeable etc. But optimal frame rate should be around 70 I(I think) and with 3.2ghz most games can get there given a highend GPU.

Also I think the GPU is going to be where you want to spend most your money on anyway. When it comes to gaming that is really the icebreaker. Maybe wait a few weeks and see how the 9800GX2 performs or the new revision of the 3870x2. Maybe see how they doin hybrid mode along with crossfire or SLI and then decide from that.
 
Back