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
cVEcOC - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
hello for Overclocking this new cpu i can up to 4.5ghz like to QX9650 at 1600FSB?nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
I really don't understand. You've check X48 chipset:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
with a Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650
You have had to problem to run the cpu at 4GHz 400MHz x 10
And now you say that a cpu at 400MHz x 8 is not stable? And you assume extra power is due to the cpu...
Have you try to measure the power of the cpu? (like there for example:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-... not the QX9770 yet on this site)
Or at least could you slower the multiplier keeping 400 FSB and doing the inverse droping fsb increasing the multiplier, in order to have the same cpu frequency but a differnt fsb on board to see if it's really related to the cpu?
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
qx9650http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-...
CPU power measure
idle: 12W
full: 63.6W
so a change of 52.6W
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...">http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...
power measure behind the psu, with "small system"
idle:82W
full:135W
so a change of 53W
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15">http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15
idle: 160W
full: 215W
so a change of 55W
But in your mesurement
idle:151W
full:192
a change of only 41W!
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....power load of QX6770 below QX6700 and QX6850
On this one same kind of result than you
http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...">http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...
look like there is some differencies between the ES
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
or motherboards...[quote]
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.
[/quote]
magreen - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Was Anand being facetious with this conclusion? A 6.6% increase in clockspeed gives a 7-8% increase in performance? That means the 1600MHz FSB did almost nothing to improve performance! We're talking a gain of 1% due to the FSB increase? Not to mention that 1% is probably within the margin of error for those benchmarks! What gives?
Toferman - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Guys,The CPUZ screenshot shows too much Voltage for stock speed. Change it to Default, and your temps shouldn't be so high.
:)
Tofer
gochichi - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
It seems like that kind of FSB to start off with is not worth it. It seems to me that Intel is actually trying to curtail the vast overclockability of it's lineup in the future.I imagine they would love to reestablish some reason to spend $600+ on a CPU. Seems like starting at a low factory FSB makes overclocking too easy.
I feel more and more so every passing day that I made a big mistake by not getting a Q6600 when they came out. If the word on the street is right, you can get those up to a steady 3.0Ghz for under three bills. That performance at that price is going to be hard to beat even by Intel it looks like.
supremelaw - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...">http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/">http://www.supremelaw.org/
Etern205 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
You must study law, well then good for you.Just don't abuse it!