Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad Core CPU
Introduction & Specifications
Published: 10th April 2008 | Source: Intel | Price: ~£640 |
Introduction & Specifications
Launched on the 12th November 2007 and built on a state-of-the-art 45nm manufacture process, the Intel Yorkfield series is largely a die shrink of Intel's enormously successful 65nm Core 2 processors. With a die size of just 214mm² and 820 million transistors, Intel has performed some significant shrinking in comparison to its 286mm² / 582 million transistor predecessor, the KentsfieldOf course, just a die shrink was never going to be enough to raise the punters eyebrows. So Intel have also given the chip a 25% increase in cache, taking it up to a rather insane 12mb (6mb per die).
Also bundled on the chip are a total of 47 new SSE4 instructions designed to increase multimedia, floating point and general number crunching performance. This is further backed up by Intel's new "Super Shuffle" engine, which Intel claim to improve the performance of both SSE2, SSE3 and SSE4 instructions that have "shuffle-like operations such as pack, unpack and wider packed shifts" resulting in further increases in performance for content creation, imaging, video and other high-performance computing.
• 3.0 GHz, 1333 FSB, quad-core
• 45nm high-K metal gate transistor technology
• 12MB L2 cache
• SSE4 instructions
• 820M transistors
• Total Die Size - 214mm2
• LGA775 socket, 130W TDP, “C-step”
• Overspeed protection removed
• Supported by either Intel P35 or Intel X38 chipsets
• 45nm high-K metal gate transistor technology
• 12MB L2 cache
• SSE4 instructions
• 820M transistors
• Total Die Size - 214mm2
• LGA775 socket, 130W TDP, “C-step”
• Overspeed protection removed
• Supported by either Intel P35 or Intel X38 chipsets
The Yorkfield is also the first processor from Intel to use high-K: a technology engineered by Intel that replaces the polysilicon material used in transistors with a halfnium based high-K metal oxide. High-K reduces the power required to switch the flow of electrons through the transistor on and off while also reducing power leakage (flow of current outside the transistor). This reduction in power consumption has allowed Intel to maintain the same TDP (Thermal Design Power) on the QX9650 as its predecessor, the QX6850 while increasing the L2 cache memory from 8mb to 12mb.As we've also come to expect from the "Extreme" series, Intel have removed the "Overspeed protection" from the QX9650 allowing enthusiasts to overclock the processor using only the multiplier settings in the BIOS. This combined with the Yorkfield's support for 0.5x increments in its multiplier settings gives enthusiasts a much finer level of control over their CPU overclock, and can remove a lot of the problems often associated with overclocking via the FSB.
Obviously the main reason we're here today is to find out whether any of the technological advances and extra features found on the QX9650 actually make it any better than its 65nm predecessors. So let's get down to business..
Most Recent Comments
woah, one hell of a review! 
its not even up on the front page yet
EDIT: good review
the dual core got left in the dust for multi-threaded aplications
but that processor isnt THAT much further ahead of the Q6600 tbh..
not really worth the extra ££ IMO
but as you said, the best of the best...
its not even up on the front page yet
EDIT: good review
the dual core got left in the dust for multi-threaded aplications
but that processor isnt THAT much further ahead of the Q6600 tbh..
not really worth the extra ££ IMO
but as you said, the best of the best...
Wow.. Where did this come from..
Will read it in a min
Will read it in a min
yummy! I want, but not enough money, ahhhggggg.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='!TIMMY!'
yummy! I want, but not enough money, ahhhggggg.
|
Im hopefully getting a Q9450, im not going to even consider spending that much money one something not all that great, a Q9450 = cheap, good for le future useage, and meh, its my b'day in a few weeks so i might as well treat myself.
Anyone else looking at anything similar or sticking with whats already out?
Anyone else looking at anything similar or sticking with whats already out?
Sticking with Dual Core until Nehalem comes out tbh
My jaw was firmly open throughout. 4.275ghz on air is mad.
Then the price popped up and my jaw stayed where it was. Ouch, but if you want the best you have to pay for it.
When these come down in price they might be an excellent buy.
Then the price popped up and my jaw stayed where it was. Ouch, but if you want the best you have to pay for it.
When these come down in price they might be an excellent buy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Pseudonym'
My jaw was firmly open throughout. 4.275ghz on air is mad.
Then the price popped up and my jaw stayed where it was. Ouch, but if you want the best you have to pay for it. When these come down in price they might be an excellent buy. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='sock58'
Im hopefully getting a Q9450, im not going to even consider spending that much money one something not all that great, a Q9450 = cheap, good for le future useage, and meh, its my b'day in a few weeks so i might as well treat myself.
Anyone else looking at anything similar or sticking with what's already out? |
Agreed with Matt though.. Nehalem
.. Its probably gonna be a little steep when first comes out though.I want one but I cant afford the price, Which is why I opted for a Q6600 instead.
Great review.
Would love to see a review on the lower spc quads like the q9450, most things Ive read so far is these wont be as good (clocking wise) as the old q6600.
Would love to see a review on the lower spc quads like the q9450, most things Ive read so far is these wont be as good (clocking wise) as the old q6600.
nice review jim.
you put a lot of volts through that chip,isn't 1.4 the max the 45nm's are rated for?Have read a lot about the 45's having seriously shortened lives due to voltage,they don't seem to be able to take being pushed on volts as well as a 65nm can.Either way though over 4.2 on air is good going,but I cant see them going much further due to the voltage issue(unless you can get that far with a lot less volts)
seems weird now,but not so long ago people were not bothered about how many volts you put into a chip,just to get the highest clock possible,you overvolted this new chip to less than my venice takes as standard(still running at 1.59 after 2 years)
you put a lot of volts through that chip,isn't 1.4 the max the 45nm's are rated for?Have read a lot about the 45's having seriously shortened lives due to voltage,they don't seem to be able to take being pushed on volts as well as a 65nm can.Either way though over 4.2 on air is good going,but I cant see them going much further due to the voltage issue(unless you can get that far with a lot less volts)
seems weird now,but not so long ago people were not bothered about how many volts you put into a chip,just to get the highest clock possible,you overvolted this new chip to less than my venice takes as standard(still running at 1.59 after 2 years)
Impressive chip and all, but hasn't it already been superseded by the QX9770 clocked at 3.2GHz?
A review of that chip on bit-tech described anyone who bought it (retails at £930-odd) as indulging in willy-waving and suggested that a Q9450 for a quarter the price, overclocked to 3.2GHZ+ was a more sensible option....
although the release of those seems to have slipped back to July looking at some retailers!! There doesn't seem to be any official notification anywhere about the 9450 & 9550 release dates.
A review of that chip on bit-tech described anyone who bought it (retails at £930-odd) as indulging in willy-waving and suggested that a Q9450 for a quarter the price, overclocked to 3.2GHZ+ was a more sensible option....
although the release of those seems to have slipped back to July looking at some retailers!! There doesn't seem to be any official notification anywhere about the 9450 & 9550 release dates.
Great write-up.
Nope. Cept in the states vS UK price does seem to fluctuate. At the time of release, the X9650 was the same price (give or take), now I think there`s a £100 or so difference.
The mobos make a difference in supplying these beasts. I`m presently running the cpu @ stock @ 1.15v or so.
With the ABit IX38, I can go 4.1x ghz on 1.2xV. Previous IX38 board I had went to 4.2x ghz on 1.3xV. All on air.
That being said again, cpuz gives incorrect readings. Uguru says it`s doing one thing - and it isn`t, and my temps, outside of coretemp are 12 degrees, sometimes hittin 18... on air >.<
X9770 for almost £1k ! sheesh.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
Intel's Extreme CPU's never come down THAT much in price...
|
The mobos make a difference in supplying these beasts. I`m presently running the cpu @ stock @ 1.15v or so.
With the ABit IX38, I can go 4.1x ghz on 1.2xV. Previous IX38 board I had went to 4.2x ghz on 1.3xV. All on air.
That being said again, cpuz gives incorrect readings. Uguru says it`s doing one thing - and it isn`t, and my temps, outside of coretemp are 12 degrees, sometimes hittin 18... on air >.<
X9770 for almost £1k ! sheesh.
.
Personally I'd say that the Q6600 is more than sufficient for the time being, especially when considering the price.
Building a rig for gaming ? I`d consider more the mobo & gfxcard(s) these days.
There are anything from 4 to 6 cpus out that will destroy games, marginly under that there a good dozen, even when run @ stock in both dual and quad core flavors.
If your doing other stuff in addition to gaming, your emphasis may change.
There are anything from 4 to 6 cpus out that will destroy games, marginly under that there a good dozen, even when run @ stock in both dual and quad core flavors.
If your doing other stuff in addition to gaming, your emphasis may change.
Ive had one sitting here for weeks now as i need a motherboard for it but my new case needs more modding done costing me ££££ nice review cant wait to get this baby under water 
CSS Valid
http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...215646766l.gif
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Review