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

UPGRADE My Q9650 @3.7GHz ????

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

q9650

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Location
San Diego
So i was wondering if there is anyone out there who still is using a Q9650 overclocked and can tell me if these numbers look about right. i was looking to upgrade my CPU (For better gaming) but i dont want to end up with something marginally better than what i have. The FX-6300 was something that i was looking at but the single core results (from what i understand this will effect gaming the most) on geekbench 3 wasn't much better than my current rig. Any advise or experience is appreciated, Thanks!

cinebench r15.png


Screenshot_17.png
 

saturn

Disabled
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Can't be of any help with those benchmarks, but I can tell you that your score would most likely be better if your were not running windows8.

You can go over to HWBOT and see how your setup stacks up.
 

||Console||

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
What is your budget , I would not be looking @ anything amd has for gaming . they are very under powered vs Intel . Get a I5 you will be happy with the boost in speed .
.
 
OP
q9650

q9650

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Location
San Diego
LOL, you caught me! yeah idk why cinebench says its windows 8 but its 10. i was looking at an i3-6100 as well
 

saturn

Disabled
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Most i3 are not much better then a overclocked q9650. I3's do have a much lower tpd. Also amd fx CPUs are more then ok. It's the apus that are under powered
 

wagex

Chapstick Eating Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
>.>
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=1197
and FX is a dead platform, no one should be "upgrading" to that platform, nothing is going to come out of it in future upgrades.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

Agreed with this for most users. If you want to look at AMD you will be waiting until later this year when they release the Zen CPU (and AM4 chipset). If you want to buy something now I would look at Intel in/around the 6600k line up depending on what your budget may be. I also feel bad for you username when you decide to change CPUs, it will be very confusing! :p
 

saturn

Disabled
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
>.>
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=1197
and FX is a dead platform, no one should be "upgrading" to that platform, nothing is going to come out of it in future upgrades.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

It may be a dead platform, but it's still a good one none the less. I don't know when am4 is coming out (if ever) but if it's no day soon, fx would be the better amd setup to go for.
If it's around the corner, then wait or go with Intel.
 

wagex

Chapstick Eating Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
It may be a dead platform, but it's still a good one none the less. I don't know when am4 is coming out (if ever) but if it's no day soon, fx would be the better amd setup to go for.
If it's around the corner, then wait or go with Intel.

why would am4 matter? fx is am3+ the dead platform.
 

saturn

Disabled
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
why would am4 matter? fx is am3+ the dead platform.

If am4 is coming out soon, then an am3+ setup would be a bad idea as you should just wait for am4.
Am4 will be newer and better and Am3+ hardware will go down in value. If am4 is not coming out any day soon then am3+ would be the better idea for a amd setup if upgrading from a overclocked q9650.
Thats just my $.02
 

wagex

Chapstick Eating Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
If am4 is coming out soon, then an am3+ setup would be a bad idea as you should just wait for am4.
Am4 will be newer and better and Am3+ hardware will go down in value. If am4 is not coming out any day soon then am3+ would be the better idea for a amd setup if upgrading from a overclocked q9650.
Thats just my $.02

i know they are ok but investing in a platform that is 5 years old just seems like a bad idea to me. a new i3 has just as good gaming performance (besides bf4) and isnt that far behind in multi-threaded applications. new i5's beat it in every sense of the meaning.
 

saturn

Disabled
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
I'm just pointing out the better performance idea if he goes the amd route. A q9650 @3.6ghz+ is going the be neck and neck with most apu's
Most i3's at socks speeds arnt much better ether.
Op's best bet is a i5 or high end an3+ setup. Or wait for am4 if he wants to see any real benefit.


Also OP newer Intel setups do not overclock like your 775 system does.its done by multipliers today.
So it will be much less of an headache if you do upgrade to a newer Intel setup.
 

wagex

Chapstick Eating Premium Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
I'm just pointing out the better performance idea if he goes the amd route. A q9650 @3.6ghz+ is going the be neck and neck with most apu's
Most i3's at socks speeds arnt much better ether.
Op's best bet is a i5 or high end an3+ setup. Or wait for am4 if he wants to see any real benefit.


Also OP newer Intel setups do not overclock like your 775 system does.its done by multipliers today.
So it will be much less of an headache if you do upgrade to a newer Intel setup.

they are a lot better. and they can only run at stock speeds. (besides the tiny bump you can sometimes get from blk)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1197?vs=49
and in most all games i3's are justas good if not better than high end fx cpu's and they have something to upgrade to.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1197?vs=697
 
OP
q9650

q9650

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Location
San Diego
im thinking i should go with a good z170 mobo and get either an i3-6100 or save a little and get a i5-6600k. the only thing is that i have a R9 380x and its been great for my q9650 but is going to be a bottleneck for a new skylake. any suggestions for a good gpu? ive heard the R9 390 and the GTX 970 are good options for a GPU less than $400
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
The 380x won't be a bottleneck, but it won't be setting any records. If you're looking at less than $400 I would keep an eye out for used GTX 980s, they are regularly in the $300-350 range IIRC.
 
OP
q9650

q9650

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Location
San Diego
im looking for Ultra settings on new games, with a minimum of 40-45FPS. will the R9 380 be capable of that?
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
I assume at 1080p?

I'm confused do you have an R9 380 or R9 380x? They are pretty different cards all things told. I would recommend looking up reviews for the 380 and see how it performs in games you are interested in, that should give you a decent idea of what it is capable of.
 
OP
q9650

q9650

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2016
Location
San Diego
sorry 380x. and i play with a 1920 x 1080 hd monitor. right now i can get about 51FPS ave on witcher 3 with Ultra (hairworks off & shaddow, water, grass density high). My R9 380x is at 100% when playing and my cpu is at 73%, doesnt that mean my GPU is bottlenecking?
 

Tech Tweaker

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2010
>.>
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=1197
and FX is a dead platform, no one should be "upgrading" to that platform, nothing is going to come out of it in future upgrades.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544
I can foresee some scenarios where upgrading to an outdated platform could make sense.

Such as if the person upgrading can't afford to build with all new parts and finds good deals on used parts from a platform that's say one to three generations back. It may not be from the newest generation, or may not be the newest technology, but it might still give reasonably good performance and be able to complete tasks or run programs at a reasonable speed. The i5 2500K, i7 2600K, i5 3570K and i7 3770K are still quite relevant to today's programs, and they're from 2011-2012. The Core i7 3820 (2012) and 3930K (2011) are one platform back from X99, but they're no slouches in their own rights'. Though at this point it would probably make more sense to go with Ivy Bridge processors if building or upgrading on LGA1155. Building an X79 rig with used parts could make sense as the boards are often cheaper than current X99 boards, though the CPU's haven't exactly gotten much cheaper yet. I've got a Phenom II X4 rig still running that was built nearly six years ago now, probably need to upgrade it at some point (some time after Zen launches most likely), but it's meeting the needs for what it does at the moment.

Then there's Z87/Z97 (LGA1150) platform, which is not exactly old, and one wouldn't necessarily take a noticeable performance hit from choosing either of them over Z170 (LGA1151). At least not at the moment anyway, barring some future processors for the LGA1151 socket that perform amazingly well compared to the 4670K/4690K and 4770K/4790K.

sorry 380x. and i play with a 1920 x 1080 hd monitor. right now i can get about 51FPS ave on witcher 3 with Ultra (hairworks off & shaddow, water, grass density high). My R9 380x is at 100% when playing and my cpu is at 73%, doesnt that mean my GPU is bottlenecking?

That likely means your GPU is being bottlenecked by your CPU, if it's anything like what I saw with my game testing. I was on a Q6600 overclocked to 3.4GHz with 8GB of DDR2 RAM and a GTX 680 (2GB card) and only getting 20-50 FPS at a 1080p resolution with detail settings on low in BF4. Now, I put that same GTX 680 into a system with a 4690K (stock) and 8GB of DDR3 RAM (1600MHz) and was able to get 70-100+ FPS with detail settings on high in BF4. With my Q6600 at the stock 2.4GHz the game was completely unplayable and I was only getting 15-30 FPS with the detail settings on low.
 
Last edited: