Q9550 vs. Q9550S

FBPerformance · Jul 7, 2009

Looking to upgrade my E8500 in a little bit to a Q9550 but just noticed that there is now a 9550 and a 9550s with the "S" being a 65w version as opposed to the original 95w version

My question is, is the extra $100 really worth it? I can't see how it would be but I'm also not a Quad expert, any input would be appreciated

dito · Jul 8, 2009

only $100 difference? I thought it was more like $200 difference. where did you find it at?

Archer0915 · Jul 8, 2009

It will cost a premium and it is worth it only if you intend to do a minor OC. These chips are hand picked due to their capacity not to leak and hence too many volts to increase clocks will either cause overheating issues or dramatically shorten the life of the processor. I just bought a 905e AMD CPU (due to the excess cost of moving everything to Intel) and this seems to be the case with those and I am pretty sure it is the case here also. I would say if you want to fold or crunch 24/7 then this is the way to go on the power bill but if it is a chip to revv up go with the non S.

I did pay a premium for a slower CPU but I fold and crunch and this will allow me to reap by the end of the year.

jgv115 · Jul 8, 2009

Benchmarks say that they are basically the same. But I think Q9550S is built differently to the normal Q9550

FBPerformance · Jul 8, 2009

dito said:
only $100 difference? I thought it was more like $200 difference. where did you find it at?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...mpareItemList=N82E16819115041,N82E16819115210

I am looking at going for 3.6ghz with the chip, and really don't think the extra $100+ would be worth it unless there are some benchies out there that can show a substantial OC diff. Also if I were going to spend the money wouldn't I be better off just going with a Q9650 then?

Thanks

xtkxhom3r · Jul 8, 2009

the S chips are better binned thus giving you better oc's at lower volts less heat and power usage i would go for it if you can afford it

BoT · Jul 8, 2009

it's not just the better quality but especially if you oc it and have it running 24/7, the amount of money you could save on your electrical bill would quickly add up.
i would estimate it would take a year, maybe too to justify the extra bucks

FBPerformance · Jul 8, 2009

Sounds good, thank for the input guys

CharlieCS · Jul 8, 2009

I would agree with what archer sad this chips will most likely dislike voltage ,thus overclocking might be hindered , regular version is where i would put my money .

ghost_recon88 · Jul 8, 2009

Q9550S has been proven to not clock any better then the normal Q9550, so I would save your money and just get a normal Q9550 E0. Also, logically if it did clock any better, you'd be better off taking that $100 premium and throwing it at a Q9650.

jason4207 · Jul 8, 2009

I have the Max II Form as well. You can expect to get 475-480FSB 24/7 stable on a 45nm quad. 500FSB for benching.

As ghost said, forget the 'S' and go for a Q9550 E0 (~4GHz) or a Q9650 (~4.3GHz).

Archer0915 · Jul 8, 2009

That pretty muck sums it up the 9550 for the short term money and max sustained performance and the S for the long term money in savings (if you run 24/7) and possibly slightly lower sustained maximum stable clocks.

FBPerformance · Jul 8, 2009

Q9550 it is, ordering it Friday. Thanks again

Boulard83 · Jul 9, 2009

Good luck !

Q9550 vs. Q9550S

FBPerformance

Registered

dito

Member

Archer0915

"The Expert"

jgv115

Member

FBPerformance

Registered

xtkxhom3r

Member

BoT

Member

FBPerformance

Registered

CharlieCS

Member

ghost_recon88

Senior Jedi Master

jason4207

Senior Member

Archer0915

"The Expert"

FBPerformance

Registered

Boulard83

Member

Similar threads