Ranked CPU List

[hikaricloud]

I guess after that should be the QX9775, QX9770, QX9650/Q9650. The Phenom II X4 955 is iffy around the Q9550, and the 940 should be in between the Q9400 and Q9550 on average.

 

[tastegw]

I guess after that should be the QX9775, QX9770, QX9650/Q9650. The Phenom II X4 955 is iffy around the Q9550, and the 940 should be in between the Q9400 and Q9550 on average.

i can go with the QX's being in the 4/5/6 slots

btw, what is the difference in the QX9650 and the Q9650, besides price
because my sister has a stupid QX9650 in her dell, and i told her she didnt need the QX because she could get the same "IRL" performance vs the non QX version for what she does (web developement)

 

[zedman3d]

i can go with the QX's being in the 4/5/6 slots

btw, what is the difference in the QX9650 and the Q9650, besides price
because my sister has a stupid QX9650 in her dell, and i told her she didnt need the QX because she could get the same "IRL" performance vs the non QX version for what she does (web developement)

I think its just the unlocked multi.

 

[hikaricloud]

^^ Pretty much, besides the Q9650 having a lower TDP... QX9650 = 130w, Q9650 = 95w.

Everything else is the same.

 

[tastegw]

^^ Pretty much, besides the Q9650 having a lower TDP... QX9650 = 130w, Q9650 = 95w.

Everything else is the same.

so if we toss out the unlocked multi since we are only going on stock speeds.

wouldnt the Q9650 come out on top over the QX9650 since it does the same with less?
or should they still remain on the same line together.

#1-i7 965
#2-i7 940
#3-i7 920
#4- QX9775
#5- QX9750
#6- QX9650/Q9650 (under debate)

 

[hikaricloud]

I stuck the i7 975 in there...if you're going to include the 950 of course.

But yeah, at stock, they are the same really.

 

[zedman3d]

I stuck the i7 975 in there...if you're going to include the 950 of course.

But yeah, at stock, they are the same really.

I say put the QX first, or put 'Q9650 (including QX)'.

 

[tastegw]

I say put the QX first, or put 'Q9650 (including QX)'.

sounds good to me

hikaricloud, you dont mind being the one to edit the original post for the orders do you, since i will not be able to after a day or so.


ok, so the next part is tricky for me,

i have owned a 940, and honestly i thought it was on par with the Q6000's, but that may just have been my setup, with a mediocre 750 board and only ddr2 800 (1066 didnt like me)
but on the other hand, ricanflow's 940 had much better results @ or near the same clocks, and he used 1066 ram with a much better board.

so, what is better, the phenom's / Q6000's / Q9300-9400-9500
and are the QX6000's any better than the non QX's for those series?

 

[Apokalipse]

I don't think a CPU ranking can really work. Performance between two different CPU's depends on a lot of different things.

It can depend on the type of instructions being executed, the compiler used, how sensitive the program is to RAM speed and timings, whether an IMC gives it a benifit, whether large cache helps, predictability of instructions by the prefetching algorithms, what RAM and motherboard it's being paired with, how well it scales with frequency, the chipset drivers and BIOS used, the operating system and what it's compiled with and how it's compiled (especially for GNU/Linux or OpenBSD).
The performance of multi-core CPU's varies depending on how well threaded the application is, and sometimes how fast the intercore communicate is (especially for multi-socket systems).

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Cpu Benchmarks

that page is pretty good. It's off by a little, but it should help you out.