Q9400 or Q9550 |
 |
Flight Simulation's Premier Resource! Where Flight Simulation Enthusiasts gather from around the world!
| this AVSIM service to you for free! Donate today! |
|
Flight Simulation's Premier Resource! Where Flight Simulation Enthusiasts gather from around the world!
| this AVSIM service to you for free! Donate today! |
  |
Q9400 or Q9550 |
 Nov 2 2009, 10:37 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member  Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 10-December 03 From: London, UK Member No.: 117,502  |
Is a Q9550 substantially better than a Q9400 for running FSX?
The Q9550 is about £40.00 ($65.00 US) more expensive, which doesn't seem too much if the difference is really noticeable. If it's not, I'd rather go for the budget option. What do you think? My MOBO is an ASUS P45QL/EPU with 4GB 1066MHz DDR2. GPU is probably going to be a 9800GTX Thanks for any comments. |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 12:11 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 767 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 159,297 |
$65 does seem a bit high for the 5-10% performance you'll gain with the 9550.
FSX SP2 on Windows 7 x64, C2Q 9550 @ 4GHz (8.5x471 @1.34V), 4GB G.SKill DDR2-8000 @ 942MHz, Gigabyte P45 UD3L motherboard, OCZ Vendetta 2 heatsink with dual 120mm fans, XFX GTX 285 @ 702/1584/2754 clocks on stock cooling & auto fan speed - displaying to Panasonic TH-42PZ80U 42" 1080P Plasma via HDMI
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 2 2009, 06:31 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 10-December 03 From: London, UK Member No.: 117,502 |
QUOTE (TechguyMaxC @ Nov 2 2009, 12:11 PM)  $65 does seem a bit high for the 5-10% performance you'll gain with the 9550. Well, that's the info I've been looking for. If it's only a question of a max 10% better performance, I'll go with the Q9400. Subjective views on various forums give the impression that the Q9550 is streets ahead.. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 12:32 AM |
