Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 12:20 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default QX9650 Query..

Hey all,
I have a typical "Bob Zone" question re: QX9650. Now, from what I undrstand this "Extreme" Chip comes with unlocked Multiplier. Now, I really want to know how the high Multiplier is so advantageous..please bear with me..for example, if I had this Chip in my 780i Board at stock, would equate to a 1333 Quad pumped Bus Speed or 333 FSB x 9 Mulitiplier (3 Ghz). Now, if I were OC'ing and was trying to reach say 3.6 Ghz (mild OC I know, but have also heard these get quite warm):
1. With my E8400 the 9x Multiplier is fine @ 1800 Bus Speed (450 FSB) (4.05 Ghz) and Memory unlinked at 1000 Mhz, linked n synched would result in 900 Mhz.
Therefore, is it advantageous to say leave the Bus Speed at 1333 (333Mhz) and increase the Multiplier to say 11x to achieve 3.66Ghz? Considering my DDR2 Memory is 1000Mhz, in the latter case the Memory would be unlinked and set to 1000Mhz or
is it better to treat it as my E8400 and bring up the Bus Speed to say 1600 (400) and run a 9x for 3.6 or a 10x for 4.0 ?
Anyhow, curious is all, I'm certainly not spending $110 on this Chip, but maybe able to pick one up for a very reasonable price.
Thanks in advance
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 12:22 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
I'm certainly not spending $110 on this Chip,
Sorry. meant $1100..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 12:31 PM
"Quote This..."
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hell
Posts: 3,828
Default

9x400 is the best way to get to 3600. 1000 memory. I did a pissload of research on the qx and came to the conclusion the unlocked multiplier is not worth the cost.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 02:08 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
9x400 is the best way to get to 3600. 1000 memory. I did a pissload of research on the qx and came to the conclusion the unlocked multiplier is not worth the cost.
Yes that was what I was getting at or thinking about, there fore my next question is what is the Max Multiplier on the Q9550? I'm assuming Stock 1333 (333 x 8.5)? Same FSB and same L2 Cache as QX9650, is that truly the only difference...8.5 Mult vs "unlocked Mult.?
In the example I would only be benefitting from the additional .5X Multiplier?....huh
I guess for folks with Watercooling it may make sense to be able to utilize highr Mult to achieve Higher OC's, however, I'm stuck with air, therefore my expectations for OC'ing are not that high....perhaps 3.6 - 3.8...
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 02:51 PM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjbarker View Post
I guess for folks with Watercooling it may make sense to be able to utilize highr Mult to achieve Higher OC's, however, I'm stuck with air, therefore my expectations for OC'ing are not that high....perhaps 3.6 - 3.8...
Back when the QX9650 first came out, people were lucky to even get 450FSB on the chips, since the best we had was the P35/X38 chipsets. So if you could handle the heat, the unlocked multi might be worth it. Not to mention that the regular variants of the 45nm quads were quite late in hitting the market. But the latest P45/X48 boards have better chipset guts, and we're seeing lots of 450-475FSB counts, which makes the unlocked multi much less important.

In your case, I'd say the QX9650 would probably be a waste. Unless you're severely FSB-limited on whatever board you're using, you'd probably have a good chance of hitting your goals. And at 3.6-3.8, you should need too much additional Vcore, so an air-cooling setups shouldn't have too much trouble handling things.
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 03:07 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
In your case, I'd say the QX9650 would probably be a waste. Unless you're severely FSB-limited on whatever board you're using, you'd probably have a good chance of hitting your goals. And at 3.6-3.8, you should need too much additional Vcore, so an air-cooling setups shouldn't have too much trouble handling things.
Thnkas, thats all interesting stuff, I only ask as I may be able to pick up the chip for $550 mark, which includes Taxes, so not a whole lot more than the 9550. My Board now seems to handle my E8400 OC'd to 4.05 Ghz Bus Speed of 1800 Mhz fine (other than having to pump 1.45 vCore to it to get it Prime Stable)...
Therefore, I guess a 400 Mhz FSB x 9 or 450 x 9 could yield me my 3.6 to 4.05 Ghz......really have to watch the Temps though I presently only use a 9700 Zalman
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 03:20 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

9550 should have better FSB. I got my chip easily up to 460FSB, but it was very hard to get stable. Newer 45nm don't have this issue, and recent qx9650's are down-bins of QX9770 or QX9775...
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 03:41 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
I got my chip easily up to 460FSB, but it was very hard to get stable.
Unless the whole System is Prime 95 Stable 18 Hrs I'm not interested as to whether it will even boot or not.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 03:48 PM
Banned
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,628
Default

oh, I got it stable, but it was a long stuggle to do so. I require IBT stability as well, which puts the hurt on cooling...

Now, I run E8400 @ 500x6, with DDR3 @ 1333 6-6-6, don't find it's lacking for my needs, even after having my qx @ 400x10 1.3v for abt 6 months...
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2008, 03:56 PM
rjbarker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Courtenay, B.C
Posts: 5,810

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
oh, I got it stable, but it was a long stuggle to do so.

Now, I run E8400 @ 500x6, with DDR3 @ 1333 6-6-6, don't find it's lacking for my needs, even after having my qx @ 400x10 1.3v for abt 6 months...
Huh...why "downgrade" from the QX Quad to a Wolfsdale?...just curious...actually, nix that, if your like me you may have other Rigs on the go and its just the way it goes! Although, why not OC the E8400, mine seems to be chuggin along at 4.05 regardless (so far) of the 1.45v vCore (keep my fingers crossed) :)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes