Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated

27 Comments

View All Comments

• cVEcOC - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link

  hello for Overclocking this new cpu i can up to 4.5ghz like to QX9650 at 1600FSB?

• nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link

  I really don't understand. You've check X48 chipset:
  http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
  with a Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650
  
  You have had to problem to run the cpu at 4GHz 400MHz x 10
  
  And now you say that a cpu at 400MHz x 8 is not stable? And you assume extra power is due to the cpu...
  
  Have you try to measure the power of the cpu? (like there for example:
  http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-... not the QX9770 yet on this site)
  
  Or at least could you slower the multiplier keeping 400 FSB and doing the inverse droping fsb increasing the multiplier, in order to have the same cpu frequency but a differnt fsb on board to see if it's really related to the cpu?
  

• nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link

  qx9650
  
  http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-...
  CPU power measure
  idle: 12W
  full: 63.6W
  so a change of 52.6W
  
  http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...">http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...
  power measure behind the psu, with "small system"
  idle:82W
  full:135W
  so a change of 53W
  
  http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15">http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15
  idle: 160W
  full: 215W
  so a change of 55W
  
  But in your mesurement
  idle:151W
  full:192
  a change of only 41W!

• nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link

  http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....
  power load of QX6770 below QX6700 and QX6850
  
  On this one same kind of result than you
  http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...">http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...
  
  look like there is some differencies between the ES

• nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link

  or motherboards...
  
  [quote]
  Updated: We're working with Intel on the source of the thermal problems we mentioned in this review, it looks like the culprit was our ASUS P5E3 Deluxe motherboard. ASUS has since released an updated BIOS intended to address the power consumption issues we faced, you can read more about it here while we continue with our testing.
  [/quote]

• magreen - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

  quote:
  

  ---

  The performance gains are impressive, given that we're only looking at a 6.6% increase in clock speed. The 1600MHz FSB does seem to do a bit, giving us 7 - 8% performance boosts in a couple of instances.

  ---

  
  Was Anand being facetious with this conclusion? A 6.6% increase in clockspeed gives a 7-8% increase in performance? That means the 1600MHz FSB did almost nothing to improve performance! We're talking a gain of 1% due to the FSB increase? Not to mention that 1% is probably within the margin of error for those benchmarks! What gives?

• Toferman - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

  Guys,
  
  The CPUZ screenshot shows too much Voltage for stock speed. Change it to Default, and your temps shouldn't be so high.
  
  :)
  Tofer
  
  

• gochichi - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link

  It seems like that kind of FSB to start off with is not worth it. It seems to me that Intel is actually trying to curtail the vast overclockability of it's lineup in the future.
  
  I imagine they would love to reestablish some reason to spend $600+ on a CPU. Seems like starting at a low factory FSB makes overclocking too easy.
  
  I feel more and more so every passing day that I made a big mistake by not getting a Q6600 when they came out. If the word on the street is right, you can get those up to a steady 3.0Ghz for under three bills. That performance at that price is going to be hard to beat even by Intel it looks like.
  
  
  

• supremelaw - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

  http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...">http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...
  
  
  Sincerely yours,
  /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
  Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
  http://www.supremelaw.org/">http://www.supremelaw.org/

• Etern205 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link

  You must study law, well then good for you.
  Just don't abuse it!