Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Um, Hot?
Not since the Pentium 4 days have we been worried about processors throttling and overheating, but this QX9770 is one hot chip. These four data-hungry cores running at 3.2GHz have given us more problems than any other Core 2 processor, including the QX9650 we recently reviewed.
Gary's QX9770 wouldn't complete 3DMark '06 without switching to a third-party heatsink. Mine wouldn't run through POV-Ray or 3dsmax without giving me lower scores than the QX9650 due the processor's internal temperature protection reducing its clock speed during the benchmarks.
These chips are early silicon and Intel had better solve these issues by the time they ship (after all, people who spend more than $1K on a processor have the right to expect stability), but our chips were definitely the most finicky we've gotten out of Intel since the Core 2 launch.
We're not entirely sure the problem lies with the CPUs or the motherboards or a combination of both, since the heatsinks never actually felt all that hot and we didn't have these problems with the QX9650.
The problems do seem related to heat though, a fresh layer of thermal compound and switching to a newer Intel retail heatsink/fan fixed my issues well enough for me to run through all the tests.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
retrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I meant to say "Most reviews of the 3ghz/1333fsb model are clocking up to 4ghz on air -" including the one right here at Anandtech..."Our unlocked QX9650 had no problems hitting 333MHz x 12.0, for a final clock speed of 4.0GHz"
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
Whats the deal?
JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
12x333 is quite different from 8x400. That might be the problem.nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
but they have done 10 x 400 on the X48 testretrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
it shouldnt be that much hotter - people are running kentsfield at way higher than that on air - many approaching 500mhz bus. 400 is achievable on basic cheap motherboards with minimal cooling solutions and has been for over 1 year.semo - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
no one is stuck with that situation. you can't even pre-order this chip and it obviously not a retail part. also it wasn't netburst's "high power envelope" that was the problem, it was the actual high power draw of the prescott core that was the problem.JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
The chipset and mobo have to run at higher clocks as well. Maybe that's the problem?MrKaz - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
So going from 1333Mhz FSB to 1600Mhz FSB gives an increase in 58W at idle and 75W at full load...Then maybe it’s better not release 1600 FSB cpus at all