On the Asus support, it seems that the Q9650 should be the fastest cpu for this but what about the Xeon?

What's a Q6200?

Seems silly to go with the Q6600 if you have the Q9650 available, so go with the faster (3.0GHz vs 2.4GHz; 1333MHz vs 1066MHz FSB) and newer (45nm vs 65nm) chip. That motherboard is relatively low-end with three-phase power, though, so you may want to avoid overclocking.

386SX wrote:

[...]

Are these still "fast" nowdays?

Depends what you call "fast". You're not exactly going to get playable framerates in BF1 with one of these, but for basic desktop/office stuff pretty any Core-series dualcore is more than sufficient if provided with enough RAM (4GB is enough) and an SSD. The added value of a quadcore is less clear unless you're doing seriously threaded stuff (in which case a Core i7 or AMD Ryzen would probably be recommended), but if you have the beast anyway, might as well use it.

Agree with SW-SSG, there's absolutely no reason to go for any Q6xxx if you have a Q9650. As for some or other Xeon... can't be bothered to look it up, but any difference will be marginal if that.

But for a more nuanced picture, once again tell us what you intend to do with this system and what other hardware it will be paired with. If provided with 512MB single-channel RAM and a Quantum Bigfoot you're not really going to get the best out of any CPU 😉

SW-SSG wrote:

What's a Q6200?

Seems silly to go with the Q6600 if you have the Q9650 available, so go with the faster (3.0GHz vs 2.4GHz; 1333MHz vs 1066MHz FSB) and newer (45nm vs 65nm) chip. That motherboard is relatively low-end with three-phase power, though, so you may want to avoid overclocking.

I think i didnt read the cpu name correctly, i meant the 2,3ghz version. I already have this and the Q6600 but i was thinking to find a Q9650 or also the Q9550.

either one, just dont try to overclock, the nforce600 is famous for being bad at quad cores.

The i7 920 is anywhere between 20-40% faster than the Q9650, which is itself about 30% or more faster than a Q6600 at stock clocks, although it gets a bit closer if you overclock.

For light web surfing and office use the Q9650 is just fine. For gaming you are good to go up until about 2014 or so. The PS4 was launched in 2013, and the years following that saw a big jump in minimum specs as games came around to target the console.

candle_86 wrote:

either one, just dont try to overclock, the nforce600 is famous for being bad at quad cores.

The FSB tolerance on the earlier sli boards was definitely not great.

If you live in U.S it would be silly not to just pick up a i5 3470 refurb that goes as low as $90. It is much faster than a OCed C2Q will ever be in games and video decoding. I saw an i5-4590 with 12GB RAM refurb going for only $170 which is a absolute steal at current RAM prices.

Your board appears to support the 3GHz E5450, so there is no need to buy the overpriced and lower binned Q9650.

But I really doubt 3.6GHz is possible on your board, and even if so it's going to struggle in Youtube 1080p60 without GPU accelerated VP9 decode, and any modern game that is moderately CPU demanding.

I use a q9650 as my main PC. At stock speeds with 8GB of ram and a gtx 750 ti I have yet to find a game I cannot play. It even plays Far Cry 5 with high settings in full hd and 30+ fps.

mcobit wrote:

I use a q9650 as my main PC. At stock speeds with 8GB of ram and a gtx 750 ti I have yet to find a game I cannot play. It even plays Far Cry 5 with high settings in full hd and 30+ fps.

PUBG is one that would cripple a Core2

386SX wrote:

[...[

I think i didnt read the cpu name correctly, i meant the 2,3ghz version. I already have this and the Q6600 but i was thinking to find a Q9650 or also the Q9550.

OK, then do go with the Q6600 for now. But once again - what do you actually want to DO with this system?

I still have a P5Q Premium as the main rig, with a Q9550 (changed with a Xeon E5450 for testing puposes and will be changed with a X5470 soon) and I'm actually happy with it. I have not much problem with games up to 2013-2014 (I always buy my games 4-5 years later when their prices are very low), but surfing thru bloated sites like facebook is problematic (probably due to still having 32bit OS and consequently utilizing just about 3.5 GB of 8GB RAM). At the moment I'm considering to add a SSD and go for multiboot with 64bit OS.

If you want high performance, playing recent games, etc., C2Q should not be your choice today, considering that core-i cpus get their nth (8 or 9?) generation update already (it was 2009 when I built this Q9550 rig). But if you want to make do with whatever on hand, and will be satisfied enough with mediocre performance (compared to contemporary rigs) like I do, I would say go with Xeon CPUs. They are cheaper than top LGA775 C2Q CPUs (Q9550 and up), but require some modding (both CPU and BIOS). This modifications are very simple though, and detailed information is already available online:

https://www.delidded.com/lga-771-to-775-adapter/ This site has very detailed and comprehensive information about the subject.

Please consider checking "Motherboard Compatibility" for your board though. supported CPU power for example might be a problem.

tayyare wrote:

I still have a P5Q Premium as the main rig, with a Q9550 (changed with a Xeon E5450 for testing puposes and will be changed with a X5470 soon) and I'm actually happy with it. I have not much problem with games up to 2013-2014 (I always buy my games 4-5 years later when their prices are very low), but surfing thru bloated sites like facebook is problematic (probably due to still having 32bit OS and consequently utilizing just about 3.5 GB of 8GB RAM). At the moment I'm considering to add a SSD and go for multiboot with 64bit OS.

Good point to mention the 64b OS, website bloat is getting insane. Even with enough RAM and 64b OS the CPU draw of many sites make a dualcore a must.

If its your everyday system, look on ebay at old Optiplex bussiness systems, a 9010 with an i5 is around 150, buy an aftermarket PSU for 50 and place your gpu inside of it and you will destory Core2 based anything, and irconically an i5 3470 or if your lucky an i7 3770 are still more than enough for today's games. Core 2 really had a good run but it's just to slow now to handle contemporary workloads with ease.

386SX wrote:

Hi, I got a Asus P5N-EM mainboard Socket 775 and Nforce 630i chipset and I'd like to know which are the best processors and your […]
Show full quote

Hi,
I got a Asus P5N-EM mainboard Socket 775 and Nforce 630i chipset and I'd like to know which are the best processors and your opinions on these ones. The Q6600 and Q6200 I already have to try and maybe I could find the Q9650 for an office pc. Are these still "fast" nowdays?
Are there even better cpu for these chipset?
Thank
Bye

I Have the same mobo's the original Asus P5N and the New edition.
I bought one used on eBay and one NEW. One came with Asus graphics cards SLI GT 8800's
Really nice looking cards.

I purchased OCZ Asus SLI ram 6400. 8gb kits for both mobo's

I have not put them together yet but when I do they should look very nice and run good.

one came with an Intel Q6600 however I think I will get some Q9650 for each mobo.

Should preform okay Geekbench CPU score about 5,500 and they support Windows 2000 and XP.

I'm a fan of Penryn/45nm Core 2 processors like the Q9650. If you're not playing the absolute latest games on them, they're still easily fast enough for most things. One of the computers I use on an almost daily basis is powered by an E8600 @ 4GHz on an Asus P5Q3 board. Mainly used for web browsing, streaming, etc. With an SSD and 8GB of DDR3 pushing it along, it feels just as snappy as my 4.6GHz 4930K on most sites.

Thanks for the answers. Only i dont understand if and why these E dual cores versions looks like better choices of the Q versions beside the multitasking work the computer will need to do, and if this is true which one is the fastest for generic office,web,mail and light gaming.