Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
Date: November 19th, 2007
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi
 
 

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.

Intel plays dirty.

The closer I got to receiving a Phenom from AMD, the more Intel started dropping hints that it would be sending me something new. One day a box arrived, inside it was this chip:

What you're looking at is an Intel CPU that won't be out until Q1 next year, it's the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. We received it within a matter of weeks of us publishing our last Core 2 Extreme review.

You have to understand Intel's motivation for this launch, because the old Intel would never have sent these chips out. The old Intel would've worried about cannibalizing current Core 2 Extreme sales by talking about a new processor this soon after a launch. The new Intel though, that's a different story.

Today is supposed to be AMD's Phenom launch, which it is, but it's just not a very strong one. AMD is still struggling with low clock speeds, and the release simply wasn't the bang you'd expect from the first real successor to the almighty K8. Rather than give AMD even a moment to regain composure, Intel attempted to disrupt the Phenom launch by sampling the QX9770.

Literally within days of AMD telling me when the Phenom NDA would lift, Intel told me the NDA date of the QX9770 previews - and what a coincidence that was.

To AMD's benefit, the QX9770 doesn't compete even remotely in the same price range as any of its Phenom processors we talked about today. To avoid hurting QX9650 sales, the QX9770 will actually carry a price tag greater than $1000 when it arrives in Q1 2008.

Like its cheaper sibling, the QX9770 is based on Intel's new 45nm Penryn core. The quad-core chip is virtually identical to the QX9650 we reviewed last month with two major exceptions: it runs at 3.2GHz and it uses a 1600MHz FSB.

The 3.2GHz speed bump is nothing earth shattering, it's a 6.7% increase in clock speed over the QX9650, but the 1600MHz FSB on the other hand is a big deal. The FSB frequency increase itself isn't even the important part, what's key here is that Intel doesn't have any chipsets out officially with 1600MHz FSB support, yet it's sampling QX9770s to reviewers.

The old Intel would've waited for the X48 chipset, which will bring official 1600MHz FSB support. The old Intel wouldn't have even recognized the QX9770 as existing on its roadmap. The new Intel not only pre-announced the chip, but it also encouraged reviewers to overclock X38 chipsets to support the 1600MHz FSB required by the QX9770.


Our QX9770 testbed, an overclocked X38 motherboard

If I'm working at AMD today I'm not worried about the specs of the QX9770, I'm worried that Intel sent these things out for review.

We've already looked at what Penryn can offer in our QX9650 review and our Wolfdale Preview. If you want to understand the architecture behind Intel's new 45nm chips be sure to read some of our earlier articles.

Um, Hot?   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

28 Comments - Last by pringlep0, 481 days ago
Username:
Password:
CPU voltage. by MrKaz, 732 days ago
Could you do some double check the CPU voltage?
How the power consuming grow up so much for just 200Mhz increase?
(It’s 4 x 200Mhz) but even so.

Is Intel getting the same P3 1.133MHZ bug? Where the Pentium 3 couldn’t be clock more than 1.000MHZ? But this time hit at 3.2GHZ.
Or is this CPU manufactured in some other less "qualified" Intel factory?

Could you under clock it to make sure?

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by JarredWalton, 732 days ago
The chipset and mobo have to run at higher clocks as well. Maybe that's the problem?

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by MrKaz, 732 days ago
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

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by xsilver, 732 days ago
Could somebody explain why after only 2 years after the death of netburst and its super high power envelope, we are stuck in the same situation again?

Also is there anything being done for future processors to rectify this problem? (besides die shrink that is)

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by semo, 732 days ago
quote:

Could somebody explain why after only 2 years after the death of netburst and its super high power envelope, we are stuck in the same situation again?
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.



Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by retrospooty, 732 days ago
I think there was some other issue going on here that should have been looked into before posting the article. Most reviews of the 3ghz/1333fsb model are clocking up to 4ghz on air - now we are saying the 3.2 has issues with heat? come on, get real.

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by retrospooty, 732 days ago
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.aspx?i=3137&p=7

Whats the deal?

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by JarredWalton, 732 days ago
12x333 is quite different from 8x400. That might be the problem.

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by retrospooty, 732 days ago
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.

Reply
RE: CPU voltage. by nemrod, 730 days ago
but they have done 10 x 400 on the X48 test

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 3

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
We Buy Laptop and PC Memory! Sell to Us!
Min of 25 pieces required. Call us today at 239.354.1230.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
more CPU & Chipset Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information