E8400 vs Q9650 for gaming

arfarsh

n00b
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
8
Hello,

I am planning to buy a CPU .. Which CPU will be better buy for gaming nowadays?
I am not hardcore gamer and I don't want to spend a lot of money on gaming purpose.
"Watch Dogs" has been release I really want to play on a decent fps and GTA V soon.

I have only 2 choices

E8400 vs Q9650

E8400 = It costs me $40 (used)
Q9650 = It costs me $90 (used)


My current Rig:

e2160 1.8GHZ
Asus P5K-VM
4 GB DDR 2
500GB WD
9800GT XXX
500W PSU


PS: Main purpose is to play Watch Dogs & GTA V (When Release) on decent fps (med-high) settings..
 
Q9650 still isn't that bad at all for most games,e8400 ok as long as the game supports 2 cores or less. Sounds like watch dogs is pretty graphic intensive so I'm not sure you'll get the performance you want out of either. You are planning to get a new video card too right?
 
2 core CPU will be annihilated by Watch Dogs, the Q9650 will be pushed hard.
Whichever you get, you will need to overclock it.

As pointed out, your gfx card is very low end.
Even with very low options, you will need way more than 1GB VRam for watch dogs.
 
Q9650 still isn't that bad at all for most games,e8400 ok as long as the game supports 2 cores or less. Sounds like watch dogs is pretty graphic intensive so I'm not sure you'll get the performance you want out of either. You are planning to get a new video card too right?

Yea, I can replace the GPU with another one, I have max budget for GPU is $100
 
I wouldn't spend anything on your S775 platform, and just save up for a new system (mobo, cpu, ram, gfx).

What resolution monitor are you using/will game at?
 
I wouldn't spend anything on your S775 platform, and just save up for a new system (mobo, cpu, ram, gfx).

What resolution monitor are you using/will game at?

THIS++

Btw, where are you getting a Q9650 for $90? I though there was a huge premium for these.
 
You gain nothing by going with the E8400. During it's prime, the quad it primarily competed with was the Q6600. In that situation, if your game only used 1 or 2 cores, it would probably be faster on the E8400. But E8400 vs Q9650, that advantage doesn't exist. Each core in the Q9650 is just as fast as the cores in the E8400. It would just be a matter of money.

It will vary chip to chip, but the Q9650 can be a very good overclocker. I ran mine at 4.4Ghz, which was a pretty amazing overclock in the pre-sandybridge era. I ran it for over a year, then sold it on eBay for like $300.
 
I'd consider upgrading an old system if it cost $20 or something but I would not be dropping $100 here and $100 there on a 775 system. No way. After a few upgrades you're at at least a 6 series board which would allow a 2500k, which is the next q6600 (going to last a long ass time).
 
What resolution are you playing at?

My bro has a Q9550 (overclocked to 3.8GHz) and a GTX 560 (stock clock) and is able to play World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, and Diablo 3 at max settings with a resolution of 1680x1050. FPS > 50.

I assume you should be able to play Watch Dogs and GTA V with a Q9650 (overclocked to 3.8GHz) and a GTX 560 or better (HD 6950, HD 7850, GTX 570) at mid settings with a resolution of 1680x1050.
 
Go with the quad, it's the only way to keep your platform valid. That being said, if you only have 100 bucks to spend, don't bother. Your video card will bottleneck your new CPU, or your old CPU will bottle neck a new video card.

I hate linking Toms, but they did a good article on how well the Q9X50 series still holds up against i3s and i5s.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html
 
Q9650 still isn't that bad at all for most games,e8400 ok as long as the game supports 2 cores or less. Sounds like watch dogs is pretty graphic intensive so I'm not sure you'll get the performance you want out of either. You are planning to get a new video card too right?

I wouldn't spend anything on your S775 platform, and just save up for a new system (mobo, cpu, ram, gfx).

What resolution monitor are you using/will game at?

I have mentioned that I am not a hardcore gamer, I am casual gamer because I don't play every new game. I like the games like Mafia, GTA, watchdog etc.. That's why I don't want to spend more money for a gaming CPU.

I am using HP ZR22W LCD. (22 Inch) - 1920x1080 supported!
 
You gain nothing by going with the E8400. During it's prime, the quad it primarily competed with was the Q6600. In that situation, if your game only used 1 or 2 cores, it would probably be faster on the E8400. But E8400 vs Q9650, that advantage doesn't exist. Each core in the Q9650 is just as fast as the cores in the E8400. It would just be a matter of money.

It will vary chip to chip, but the Q9650 can be a very good overclocker. I ran mine at 4.4Ghz, which was a pretty amazing overclock in the pre-sandybridge era. I ran it for over a year, then sold it on eBay for like $300.

Yea, I read some reviews and found that E8400 has 2 cores and old games were based on 2 cores. So what's your opinion should I go with Q9650.. is it worth for normal gaming nowadays?
 
What resolution are you playing at?

My bro has a Q9550 (overclocked to 3.8GHz) and a GTX 560 (stock clock) and is able to play World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2, and Diablo 3 at max settings with a resolution of 1680x1050. FPS > 50.

I assume you should be able to play Watch Dogs and GTA V with a Q9650 (overclocked to 3.8GHz) and a GTX 560 or better (HD 6950, HD 7850, GTX 570) at mid settings with a resolution of 1680x1050.

I would like to play games at 720p (1280x720).. I must have to change the GPU as well.. suggest me the best GPU according to the Q9650 that wouldn't bottleneck-ed .
 
Yea, I read some reviews and found that E8400 has 2 cores and old games were based on 2 cores. So what's your opinion should I go with Q9650.. is it worth for normal gaming nowadays?

Yeah, it's 2014, go quad if you have anything resembling a choice.

More and more background programs, including the OS itself, expect there to be idle cores available in most situations. It's not seen as big deal anymore if some lame background program or service pegs an entire core at 100% for some stupid reason. So these days, even if the game you are playing only uses two cores, having extra idle cores can help make sure that the CPU as a whole doesn't get bogged down to the point of slowing down your game.
 
I can say from experience that with an e2180 at 3GHz, I was using a HD5750 and it seemed pretty balanced at the time (two years ago), but I was at 1280x1024 at the time. I couldn't imagine anything much higher on the GPU being a benefit, even with the Q9650, especially if you're only interested in gaming at 720p. Not saying you should get a HD5750, because they're outdated, but anything at least that powerful would work well.

That all being said, I still don't think it's worth it, and also, 4GB of RAM is seriously going to be hurting you with new titles.

Do you live somewhere that sells newer hardware at decent prices? You could probably get any i3-based system, even an older-gen i3 (processor, mobo, and RAM) for $200 if you live somewhere with decent prices. That money is way better spent on a new system than buying an old processor. Then when you save up another ~$100, get an average video card. You'll be way better off than piecemeal updating an old socket. Even the Q9650 is significantly slower than an i3.
 
I would like to play games at 720p (1280x720).. I must have to change the GPU as well.. suggest me the best GPU according to the Q9650 that wouldn't bottleneck-ed .

If you plan to play on only 720p then you should be fine with a Q9650 and a GTX 560 or better.

GPU Chart
 
Hell even if you want to go ultra cheap, the e8400 plus a geforce 650 will bring you a world of difference from what you already have. I would suggest waiting and saving but really that's not a bad solution to go with on your budget.
 
There's another solution to "I don't want to pay a lot for a processor". You can do what I do. I make soup and freeze it in Rubbermaid containers and heat them in a bowl covered with a plate in a microwave oven. I also make "TV Dinners" with spaghetti, spaghetti sauce, fries or potatoes, a bit of meat and frozen corn and put them in Rubbermaid containers. Then there are other cheap solutions like egg sandwiches, peanut butter on bread and bananas.

(Soup with red kidney beans, chick peas, rice, lentils, pasta, tomatoes, frozen corn, hamburg (meat), salt, pepper, basil, oregano and olive oil.)
 
Have you considered doing the 771 to 775 mod to get quad Xeons running in standard 775 motherboards? You can find equivalent Xeons for $15-45 versus $90+ for Core 2 Quads. I don't know if your motherboard works for it or not, but you can find it in these threads:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1431723/mod-lga775-support-for-lga771-xeon-cpus/
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1803792
http://www.delidded.com/lga-771-to-775-adapter/

This ^^^^

If you are dead set on socket 77X, do the 771 to 775 mod. Of course you need to do your due diligence and ensure your motherboard / chipset are GTG for this, but provided they are it's your cheapest bet.

I had a Q9300. Sold it for $70 on Ebay and got a Xeon X5460 for $50. I have that OC'd and running at 4.2ghz. Paired with a GeForce 760 GPU I am gaming at 1920x1200 all day long.
 
I still think watch dogs is going to choke on even the upgrade, it's wasted money to upgrade this sucker platform if you want to play newer titles.

*EDIT* autocorrect--sucker = older...lol!
 
Last edited:
No matter which processor you go with, you are definitely going to need a newer GPU to go with it. If you could put a little more cash on a GPU I would suggest looking at a GTX 750Ti or a R7-265. You may be able to grab a used one pretty close to $100 (if you can find one used). A used GTX 650Ti or AMD 7850 wouldn't be too bad either.

I have a GTX 750Ti running on a low end i3-4130 (dual core cpu w/ht), and it runs games great. Not super high settings are anything, but I can say that I have been pretty happy with it.
 
Back
Top