E8400 VS Q9450 . dont know which is faster in pcsx2 and FFx

[renejr902]

E8400 VS Q9450 dont know which is faster in pcsx2

i want to play some ps2 games. But FFX is my favorite.

im ready now to buy my new pc .

( i dont want to overclock my cpu)

i know that e8400 at 3.0ghz is enough for running ffx full speed 60fps for most part of the games. BUT i fear the q9450 ( 2.66ghz x4 12 megs) wont be enough fast or slower than E8400.

What do you think ?

[Krakatos]

Uh.... if you don't want to overclock... get the E8400. If you want speed that is.

Pcsx2 just uses 2 processes....

[Nemesis2354]

Hi i have an E8400 with a Geforce 8800GT and FFX is fully playable between 50 and 60 FPS. Its better for speed

[renejr902]

i dont want to overclock, because i want to have a very stable system. and i want to keep my cpu for 5 years approx

is it any any danger to overclock a q9450 at 2.66ghz to 3.0ghz with the included fan

and how much a e8400 at 3.0ghz can be overclocked with the included without any danger at all ?

if there any risk , i would have to know it

( sorry for my bad english)

[John Aiton]

Originally Posted by renejr902

i dont want to overclock, because i want to have a very stable system. and i want to keep my cpu for 5 years approx

is it any any danger to overclock a q9450 at 2.66ghz to 3.0ghz with the included fan

and how much a e8400 at 3.0ghz can be overclocked with the included without any danger at all ?

if there any risk , i would have to know it

( sorry for my bad english)

nope. I have a cpu with a 1ghz overclock that's been prime stable for over a year at least

but snce you're an oc noob, just get the e8400

[echosierra]

There is always risk when you overclock, though when done right it never becomes an issue.
I believe overclocking voids the warranty, since you're taking the processor outside of it's intended operation parameters.

If you aren't able (or willing) to buy another processor in the event that you screw up, don't overclock.

[renejr902]

i have overcloking some of my cpu some years ago

( i got a celeron 600 mhz overclock at 730 mhz some years ago, but the computer got blue screen after a few years, i thought it was that.)

but i suppose that (q9450) 2.66ghz to 3.0ghz , is not a very high overclocking
i think i read that i didnt have to change the voltage to get it to work at 3.0ghz. is it right ? i dont want to overclock it more than that .
but i cant buy the qx9650 lol like 1000$


so do you think that q9450 at 3.0ghz can get stable with included fan without changing voltage ?

thanks for answer. i read some test has sucess at 3.6ghz but really i will not try higher than 3.0ghz. its enough for me.

[John Aiton]

Originally Posted by renejr902

i have overcloking some of my cpu some years ago

( i got a celeron 600 mhz overclock at 730 mhz some years ago, but the computer got blue screen after a few years, i thought it was that.)

but i suppose that (q9450) 2.66ghz to 3.0ghz , is not a very high overclocking
i think i read that i didnt have to change the voltage to get it to work at 3.0ghz. is it right ? i dont want to overclock it more than that .
but i cant buy the qx9650 lol like 1000$


so do you think that q9450 at 3.0ghz can get stable with included fan without changing voltage ?

thanks for answer. i read some test has sucess at 3.6ghz but really i will not try higher than 3.0ghz. its enough for me.

for clocking up to 3 ghz, stock volts and cooling will be fine

generally q9450s can hit 3.8Ghz fully stable with decent cooling
and e8400s are 4Ghz capable

[Bekyuubi]

Get the 8400. You can overclock 8400 as well... the q9450 is meant to go a long distance with 4 cores (they [not pcsx2 team], other games/software developers are thinking of programs that uses 4 cores in the future)

[MakaveliKnightG]

i have e8200 o/c at 3.2 and my system is very stable and pcsx2 work great 60 fps in all game playable at full speed

[Krakatos]

Originally Posted by MakaveliKnightG

i have e8200 o/c at 3.2 and my system is very stable and pcsx2 work great 60 fps in all game playable at full speed

Please do not post misguiding informations.
3.2 Ghz may be enough for all games you own, and maybe for all games that work "well" with pcsx2, but it will not be enough to get 60fps in all games...

[RPGW1ZaRD]

Concidering Yorkfield are overpriced and Wolfdales going down in price again from having being overpriced for a while I'd get E8400. At 3GHz you should get full speed in FFX at least 95% of the time. I have mine overclocked to 4.0GHz and get ~90 FPS minimum in FFX.

[cottonvibes]

get the q9450 and just raise the FSB a bit to get it to 3.0 Ghz.

its really easy! and you'll have a quad-core at 3ghz instead of a dual-core at 3Ghz.

getting a dual-core this late in the game seems like getting last years technology...

[Ksero]

Right now it's better to buy a quad-core,I think it's already too late to buy a dual-core.A bit later more and more software will support 4 cores.

[Bekyuubi]

I will say a quad is a way better buy with accordance of a 5 year-last notion than a duo core. If you buy a quad... well it's almost a crime not to overclock, because of the overclocking ability it gives. Be careful though. It voids warranty if you do overclock (but it's a gamer's pleasure to do so with 25% increase to 3.2++ GHz with 4 cores.)

[RPGW1ZaRD]

Well currently the Q9450 is like 70 ~ 80% expensier than E8400 and there's like almost no apps yet that benefits by a quad and I still think it will be a good 1 year+ before there will be some decent amount apps benefitting from a quad. Unless you only plan to buy a new CPU in like 3 years+ then perhaps a quad is good choise now, otherwise upgrade to a quad when there's actually a benefit from it and you'll get a much better quad core than there's available now. I don't see the point of choosing something before it's actually useful so it's not "too late" to buy a dual core today IMO but yea I also upgrade my comp like once every 1 - 1½ year (since mid 2005 I've owned AMD64 3700+, Opteron 165, E6750 and now E8400 ),.

[renejr902]

thanks a lot guys!
Interesting points from you all... specially RPG1WIZARD

maybe i could buy a e8400 and buy a quad later the board support it anyway. but i dont think it will support the latest quad core cpu in 1 or 2 years, but maybe some cpu like qx9650 will be available at a good price.

2 last questions

1. but Right now can i see any difference in my windows application with a quad instead of a core duo ? i thought a core duo was good to for multithreading like burning a cd with nero when decoding a movie in same time...

2. but i look at the stats of the e8400 and q9450. i think a oc q9450 at 3.0ghz will be = to a e8400 with stock speed in pcsx2. right ?

[Mkilbride2588]

RPG wizard. Do not lie.

Half-Life 2 and Unreal Tournament 3, and Crysis can fully use Quad core. Those are some huge games, and they see a 15% performance boost over dual cores at the same clock speeds, and 15% is no laugh.

Quad Core is better for multi-threading due to 4 cores, it's over-all better for multi-tasking in the end, and most encoding and decoding programs out there already support it. In 5 years, Quad core will be outdated, but it won't change the fact it IS faster than Dual Core.(if the application supports it)

Then again, a E8400 can reach 4GHZ, and has a well designed architecture.

The fact you don't want to OC is a real shame, because that's where both processors shine.

On my Q6600, I can encode
5 home movies or so on a 4.7GB DVD(And fill it to the top with quality) and it takes about 39 minutes to do it, burning included, which is pretty nice.

Overall, I also like saying I have a Quad Core. Of course, Octa-cores are right around the corner and who knows hiw powerful those will be :P

[cottonvibes]

i personally notice the quad-core being way better for just browsing through windows and stuff.


The difference between daul-core and quad-core when browsing through windows is similar to having 512mb of RAM, and then upgrading to 2GB of ram.

you just notice its soo much smoother.

My brother has a quad-core, and i have a dual-core, and it just pwns my PC at multi-tasking.

edit:
i agree with what Mkilbride just said.
RPGwizard probably hasn't experienced a quad-core.

i know my next upgrade is definitely going to be a quad-core or an octo-core.
i'm not going to get another dual-core because they're old news now...

[renejr902]

hmmm maybe i will go with the q9450.

but a oc q9450 at 3.0ghz will be = to a e8400 with stock speed in pcsx2 ? right?


( e8400 x2 3.0ghz 6 megs = q9450 x4 0c 3.0ghz 12 megs ??? )