• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***The Official Yorkfield Q9300/Q9450/Q9550 Overclocking Thread ***

hi there,

I just got a Q9450 today and i've just put it in and i seem to be getting different temp readings. I'm running it on a ASUS Maximus Formula with the 1201 BIOS...

I also use everest and it reports the same as core temp.

Which temps should i trust or should i try reseating the HSF??. I'm using a Thermalright Ultra-120 with Arctic Silver 5.

14903544es5.jpg


Thanks.
 
Last edited:
My Q9450 running at 3.4 is 41 44 45 45 using realtemp 2.5,i don't think it needs reseating ive seen a lot of these new quads actually run hotter than the Q6600's.
 
BusError said:
I did a lot of searching, and from the various discussions it appears the Tjmax on these is /not/ 95 or 100, it's 85C. That gives much more realistic results.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... the temp programs might just need updating. My temps are not right at all. I ran prime95 for about 20mins and according to coreTemp my cores were 60c which must have been rubbish as there was cool air coming out the back of my case. I don't think RealTemp is corret either.
 
my OEM Q9450 (L812B028) does 3.6 at 1.39v OCCT stable

will run prime overnight

temps seem funny

at full load coretemp shows 72,63,64,60 and realtemp shows 59,49,54,50

my board is a Maximus Formula flashed to a Rampage 401
 
Last edited:
I've posted this in the Folding forum, but it's just as at home here as there -



Four LinuxSMP clients via two Ubuntu VMWare VM's (2 clients per VM) running 2605 units in x64 Vista comparison -


Q6600 @ 3.9ghz -


fahcm4.jpg



Q9450 @ 3.78ghz -


q94502605oy1.jpg



Note the latter screenshot was taken in x64 XP, but the VM's are running on my Vista machine.
 
Last edited:
High expectation were set with the launch of the newest 45nm chips from Intel, With the Q6600 doing so well we expected more with the newest chips. But on the whole its been a little disappointing in terms of clock speeds. So I thought I'd have a look into 45nm range I picked a QX9650, Q9450 and a X3350 to test, All tests were done with a Rampage x48 board using the same BIOS, Ram ect ect

The maximum FSB that I could boot into windows with

QX9650 480 FSB
Q9450 476 FSB
X3350 480 FSB

Even using massive voltages, 2v on the northbridge 1.6v thought the chip ( tried on the Q9450, X3350 ) It would just black screen when loading vista, Anything over 495FBS the board would not even post.

There is quiet clearly a FSB wall on all these chips, Is it down to the chips themselves or the chipsets not having enough guts to maintain the FSB waveform when its pushed faster and faster. I'd bet on the chipsets personally, A Q9450 or X3350 would reach 4GHz if it had a multi of 9. I hope to test the X3360 with its 8.5 multi it “ should “ be able to do 471 x 8.5. With the high end Foxconn x45 and the newer P45 boards maybe the 480FSB wall be be broken, As soon as I can get my hands on them I'll post results.

Voltages ( I tried to keep all other voltages the same, NB, PPL,VVT ect ) ( I could only do small 30 minute runs of Prime to check the chips were stable at these voltages )

Q9450

@3.6 GHz 1.44 volts
@3.8 GHz 1.51 volts

X3350

@3.6 GHz 1.29 volts ( Using an IP35 Pro )
@3.8 GHz 1.39 volts

QX9650

@3.8 GHz 1.28 volts
@4.0 GHz 1.32 volts

**Disclaimer**

The Q9650 and X3350 were picked totally at random, There will be much better and worse chips out there, The above setups are not 15 hour prime stable, there just to give you an idea of the performance of the chips. The QX9650 was a cherry picked Week39.
 
Smirnoff said:
Q9450

@3.6 GHz 1.44 volts
@3.8 GHz 1.51 volts

X3350

@3.6 GHz 1.29 volts ( Using an IP35 Pro )
@3.8 GHz 1.39 volts

QX9650

@3.8 GHz 1.28 volts
@4.0 GHz 1.32 volts
Click to expand...

Set in BIOS or under load in Windows?

The Q9450 voltage readings look far too high compared to the X3350. 1.38v under load is about the average for a Q9450 at 3.8ghz.
 
well some places were charging £5 less than the price you paid when they launched. Everyone was selling for huge profits, ocuk were charging like £290! so thats £90 extra profit than the normal profit they should be making. expect some places to charge £200 in like 3 weeks or summut, after that there will be a slow drop in price like normal with intel cpus. q9300 is £160 that wont drop too much, maybe £150 in 3 weeks.
 
just got my system up and running and i'm looking at the setting suggested earlier of upping the FSB to 1600 for the rating of 3.2GHz. and am i right in thinking that this can be done without or with little voltage uppage? also what is the stock cpu voltage and fsb voltage for this processor as i dont really want to leave it on AUTO. all i have changed is FSB to 1600 and the divider set to 3:2 to acheive the 1066MHz on my OCZ ReaperX. does all this sound ok as its only the 2nd time i've tried overclocking. ans as its not running much more voltage will the life of the CPU still be substantial. (will probably upgrade in a few years anyway. :D)

any advice is much appreciated.
 
Stock voltage is probably 1.125v, tho Core Temp will tell you the exact VID.

What voltage you need for 3.2ghz really depends on your chip.

Have you set the correct voltage for your memory?
 
yea its set at 1.85v, and set manual timings too. (all correct)

are the FSB and Core Voltage meant to be the same value then?

it's still currently running at stock speed as i wanted to make sure everything was perfect first. But also my temps seem to be high, im reading 49c at Idle and around 63c on full load in prime95 small fft's. (stock CPU settings :() i think i'm gonna reapply my thermal paste as i used some cheap stuff cos i'd run out of AS5.
 
those temps are similar to mine (well the 1st ones), although your fans are running significantly faster then mine. 8) might bash mine up to max, there only on 50% at the moment. but only got my 9450 OC'd to 3.00GHz on stock voltage. dont really need anymore out of it yet. ;)
 
bluemoonmcfc said:
i assume you meen 60 - 65 at full load?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would never refere to idle temps alone! :D

Have you done any scaling tests with your chip yet btw? I mean like did you set the vCore to the minimum and see how far your chip can clock?

Scaling tests are not everyones cup of tea as it requires more patience but I always find it useful and I am always suprised how far the chip can clock at well below recommended vCore.

Remember less vCore = Cooler Chip and less £££ on your leccy bills!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom