Short version:

Which processor will give me the most 'stable' processing power OC'd with some consideration of cost? (I.e I won't pay $500 more for .01% improvement )

Long Winded:

This is a difficult question for me to ask the group because I have run AMD procs since the 486dx280, even had a NEXGEN in there. Bottom line is my 5600+ only OC'd
marginally and I'm not getting the FPS I want from the newer DX10 games, and I'm extremely disappointed with the new Phenoms. SO, Intel will infiltrate.

I have a relative that works at Intel that can get substantial discounts on the processors (they are alotted 1 a year). The QX9650 would be $450ish. I point that out since I don't want price to bias your answers, but also realize all procs will have a similar discount. I want the horsepower to run 3D games. My memory is very low CAS 1066 OCZ. I have no problem with OC'ing.

I know it's a loaded question, but which one do I get? You guys are the experts and hopefully can educate me on what I'm missing, or what the marketing dept isn't letting out If I can push the QX9650 to 4.0 w/air and the 9550 only to 3.6, I think it's an easy decision between those, but what about the newer QX's?

I want a 45nm chip that has the full 12Mb L2. The QX97xx series is intriguing with the 1600FSB, but can the 9550 be pushed that far just as easy? The QX9770 has to have the X48 chipset, which seems to not be as tunable, but the QX9775 uses E5400 and a new socket and FBD?? The extremes have 130W vs 90W - I'll snap a thermalright Ultra 120 on it, so maybe the heat difference isn't important.

Thanks all.

I think the vga card is much more important for high FPS than the cpu.
Any of the mentioned processors would be fine with even the most powerful of vga cards.

I run my QX9650 @4Ghz only because I haven't had a chance to fiddle. People are getting remarkable oc's with this chip:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=162552

That's with the stock cooler he reckons 5 on bigger air. If you can a QX chip at a discount go for it, personally I don't know how you waited this long. As for the X48 it clocks higher and runs alot more stable, I recently got a GA-X48-DQ6 and its hasn't dropped once. If your happy with 4Ghz you don't need anything other than the stock cooler, it's a big mofo and actually overlaps one ram slot on my mobo.

Thanks for that link, gives me a lot more info.

I should have mentioned that I have 2 SLI 8600GT's, while not great are definately not my weakspot.

I to have the qx9650 at 4.2ghz with a titan amanda cooler and found it very stable but the q9550 would be fine with a pair of 8600gt's i'm sure.$450 is a bargain for a qx9650 i paid more than twice that.go for it

The QX9650 seems like a great choice, but what is surely hampering your system is the SLI 8600GT, you can be sure a single 8800GS would eat them alive.

go with the q9550 and the rest of the cheese towards an 8800gt at the least is what i would do IMO. that would be the idea system at $500 overall if you get the q9550 for around $300 rather than $550!

I know you'd hate me for this and i know that this is not what you want to hear ...but gettin a QX isn't worth it at all .... you won't notice any difference playing a game with an OC'd Q9300/Q8500 and a QX ......... bulk of gaming performance depends on GPU. Except for Fli Sim.

If you have enough money, then get QX9770, or a QX9650, or a Q9550, in that order depending upon available funds. The QX9775 is a different platform and therefore very limited in usage, besides which, it doesn't do any better than a QX9770.

The above said, unless you're into heavy overclocking, the Q9550 will probably do just as well as a QX9650. The QX9770 remains in a class of its own. By the way, who told you that a X48 mobo isn't tunable? You get a good one, like the ASUS Rampage Formula or Maximus Forluma if you want DDR3 ram, or one from DFI, and you can tune it any way you want. I can get my QX9650 up to 4ghz on air, though things start to get fairly warm at that speed. Using a TRUE with two fans and the temps are quite manageable up to 3.93ghz on air. I do sometimes wish I'd have had the extra money for a QX9770, but choices have to be made, and the taxes have to be paid (IRS). Do be wary of the Nvidia chipsets, as they have had several problems, especially when overclocking, including corrupting the hard drive. Anandtech had a recent article on this: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=460 Nvidia is claiming that they have solved the problem, but only time will tell for sure.

At the moment, if you want two cards, a pair of 3870s will do nicely. If you can wait a few days, the 4870s will be out and they should do better yet. But a question arised if you really need two cards. If your monitor is less than a 24" widescreen, than one card should do the job, especially if you got a 4870. One thing for sure, if you absolutely want to go with two cards, cut down on the CPU before you cut down on the video cards.

Q6600 FTW!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115042

@ Best_reviewss.... What is up with u ADDING the product numbers?? Does not make sense to me!! Products are NOT numbered according to any "power index"... Thats just a number givn to differentiate them!! Pls stop adding them... Its freaking me out!!

q9975 = 18 + 7 +0.5 = 25.5 power index
q9970 = 25 power index
q9659 = 9+6+5 = 20 power index

Have any of u ppl heard of these processors?? There is no q9975 or q9970 or q9659.. Bseides, the qx9775 is a Xeon!

Anyways, I dont mean to upset you or anything... I just think "power index" is not really a valid technical term.. U cant just add up product numbers even if the processor is faster..
I mean just cos its named qx9775, it does not make sense to add up 9+7+7+5..
Just to go 1 step further.. If ur so called "q9975" has a "power index" of 25.5, can I add up 2+5+5= 12.. 1+2= 3.. So its "real" power index wud now be 3!! Did i get that right???

Thanks for the input. I've been around a while and have never heard of this power index math? Can you explain or link to something? What I thought was most likely a 9550 didn't pass the same benchmark tests as a 9770, so it was turned into a 9550? Possibly it tested fine as a 9770 but due to market conditions it had its variable multiplier pathway fried and labeled as a 9550.

It seems that on average a Q9550 can only OC to 3.8 whereas a QX9650 is at 4.1? So my decision between the two would be is a a 10% increase worth a 25% premium. I'm really leaning toward the QX9650. It is a Yorkfield XE which uses the high-k metal gates, whereas the 9550 is a standard Yorkfield. Ay? Anyone know what the Q9650 should have when released? The QX9770 looks impressive when comparing stock performance, but I don't see any significant differences when OCing.

No love for the skullrail chip?

My 8600Gt's definitely will be replaced, but when I put the two of them in my friends box with his q6600 My 3dmark and crysis fps goes up substantially. I do run a 24" LCD (preferably in 1920) and wanted to settle on the chip before changing the GPU for fear of any of those odd incompatibilities.