PDA

View Full Version : QX6850 vs a E8500



crazy8s846
03-22-2009, 02:53 AM
I was just wondering if a QX6850 would be better than a E8500, I know the run about the same speed, and the QX6850 runs hotter than the E8500. Im not really worried about the heat, im water cooling. Thanks for any help.

burebista
03-22-2009, 03:00 AM
Would be better for what? For multitasking tasks of course it would be better. For gaming and general use I don't think you'll see a difference.
But if you're on water and both are at same prices go for quad.

crazy8s846
03-22-2009, 03:14 AM
Would be better for what? For multitasking tasks of course it would be better. For gaming and general use I don't think you'll see a difference.
But if you're on water and both are at same prices go for quad.

I can get the QX6850 for 40 dollars more. I was just wondering if the QX6850 would overclock good compared to a E8500. If i get it it will be to just have a little fun, tring to get it to run really fast. Would it be better to just get a Q9550

MrWicked1968
03-22-2009, 02:38 PM
watercooling offers no real benefit over air cooling other than it's potential to be a lot quieter. both are limited by ambient air temperature.

unless you're using a TEC or some other type of chiller to cool the liquid below ambient.

crazy8s846
03-22-2009, 02:48 PM
watercooling offers no real benefit over air cooling other than it's potential to be a lot quieter. both are limited by ambient air temperature.

unless you're using a TEC or some other type of chiller to cool the liquid below ambient.

I wouldnt agree, on air my processor runs 71c underload, with water its 45c underload. I agree they are limited by ambient temperature, but when overclocking water has a advandage over a air cooler.

MrWicked1968
03-22-2009, 03:10 PM
must not have been a very good air cooler.

crazy8s846
03-22-2009, 03:50 PM
must not have been a very good air cooler.

It was a good air cooler, its just that water is more efficant at removing heat, than a air cooler.

EarlZ
03-22-2009, 04:15 PM
watercooling offers no real benefit over air cooling other than it's potential to be a lot quieter. both are limited by ambient air temperature.

unless you're using a TEC or some other type of chiller to cool the liquid below ambient.

Havin the same processor run at 15-20c cooler and the videcard 20-25c cooler does offer some benefit to some.

MrWicked1968
03-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Havin the same processor run at 15-20c cooler and the videcard 20-25c cooler does offer some benefit to some.

well no kidding.

Sphere
03-22-2009, 05:02 PM
Water for overclocking is the way to go. You can get decent air coolers, but with ambient equal across the board, decent water cooling will oust great air cooling. Comparing water and air is a debate that has never made any sense to me, two different animals.

One thing to remember crazy, is that the QX has an unlocked multi.

crazy8s846
03-22-2009, 05:31 PM
Water for overclocking is the way to go. You can get decent air coolers, but with ambient equal across the board, decent water cooling will oust great air cooling. Comparing water and air is a debate that has never made any sense to me, two different animals.

One thing to remember crazy, is that the QX has an unlocked multi.

Yea the unlocked multi is the reason i was thinking of getting it, from what ive read seems to be a good processor. Im just wondering if i just shouldnt put another 50 or 60 dollars and get a q9650. I think anyone that compares water to air have probably never had a good water cooling system, or they dont overclock, and turn the volts up. On my E8500 i can do 4.012 on air, at 100% load it will run 70c, Thats when i decided to go with watercooling, it brought my temps down to 45c under load. Which is much better for the processor. My idle temp went from 34c to 25c, so no body can tell me air is as good as water, at cooling a processor. The benefit of having a cooler processor is it is much more stable and will last a lot longer as far as the life of the processor goes.

Sphere
03-22-2009, 05:56 PM
I'm running a 9650, and it's a real nice chip. IMHO, it would be worth the extra $40 to pick it up. You should not have any issues running it 4.0, they clock really well :)

gemini
03-23-2009, 09:04 AM
I had watercooling year ago, used for my E6300
it was a great overclocker, I was anle to run it 3.25Ghz with def. voltage
after I changed to aircooling (xigmatek hdt1283s, one of the best aircoolers available, comparable to TRUE+12cm fan) I could run it only 3.00Ghz that means 250mhz minus.
surely, lowcost watercooling is just sh!t, do not bother buying them.

PowMaxed
07-10-2009, 12:44 AM
Are you getting the QX6850 for cheap or something?

If not, a Q9550 would be much more economical and performs better.

Solitaire
07-13-2009, 02:27 PM
Umm... necrothreadadedged? :p

EE is a double-edged sword... QX6850 has an unlocked multi, but its a very hot and thirsty critter compared to almost any other C2Q other than the QX9775... a Q9550 on the other hand benefits from the 45nm process, and somehow manages to keep under the 95W TDP barrier while running at 2.83GHz with shedloads of cache to boot. Much more manageable, and the highish stock speed means that with a good P45 mobo known for high-FSB stability (clue: try to get one that's rated for FSB1600!) you can get it waaaay over 3GHz without much effort, possibly past 3.7GHz with good cooling and a stable mobo.

xguntherc
09-13-2009, 03:52 AM
I'd say get a Q9550, or a Q9650 over the QX for SURE!

Spectre
09-13-2009, 10:35 AM
Must be the zombie apocalypse because this shit won't die.


Brains..........................

richardscott
10-02-2009, 07:04 AM
Hi Everyone..

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.

davidhammock200
10-02-2009, 07:22 AM
Must be the zombie apocalypse because this shit won't die.


Brains..........................Damn!:crazy:

jguy
07-11-2010, 09:18 AM
Would likely go for a Q9550 or Q9650, no need for the X series. It'll run alot cooler than 65nm quads and if you get an E0 revision you're almost guaranteed 4GHz (never had an E0 that did not do at least 3.8Ghz on low volts). Would perform better clock for clock too.