Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is faster than the QX9650, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to really come up with that one. The 1600MHz FSB is an interesting jump for Intel, and it'll quite possibly be the last FSB bump on the desktop before Nehalem, which should do away with the FSB altogether.
The power consumption numbers are particularly frightening, we're not exactly sure why a meager 6.7% increase in clock speed resulted in an almost 40% increase in total system power consumption, but if that's the case in the shipping product then we know now to stay away from it.
We'll obviously revisit the QX9770 once we have production silicon, hopefully Intel will have some answers to us before then. The QX9770 is absolutely not an acceptable part if it does indeed come with a > $1000 price tag and these thermal issues.
We can't help but reiterate though, the biggest take away of today's preview has nothing to do with the product itself. Intel's reaction to Phenom, particularly how quickly it reacted, is truly unusual for the company.
It's also worth pointing out that had Phenom actually launched at 3.0GHz (or close to it), Intel may have re-thunk its pricing strategy with the QX9770. We might be looking at a $1000 part instead of one that will be priced above that mark.
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