• 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.

Yorkfields are nearly here! Q9300, Q9450 & Q9550 :)

Is there any boards that can hit 500fsb with these?
Was thinking about jumping ship but not worth it unless a X38 or P35 can hit near 500fsb :(
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
it seems high FSB like that is a real longshot,

im still wondering whether these chips are worth it over a q6600 G0
Click to expand...

By the looks of it, it all depends on what set up you currently have.
Most go's do 3.6ghz with little vcore (mine only needs 1.3V) & as nice as these new quads look, i would need faster ram & possibly a new mobo for simialr clocks and dont think there will be much performance gain (not enough to warrant the extra costs) but if you're coming from an amd system then it could be worthwhile.

I will certainly be keeping the Q6600 until results start coming in :)
 
tatts said:
By the looks of it, it all depends on what set up you currently have.
Most go's do 3.6ghz with little vcore (mine only needs 1.3V) & as nice as these new quads look, i would need faster ram & possibly a new mobo for simialr clocks and dont think there will be much performance gain (not enough to warrant the extra costs) but if you're coming from an amd system then it could be worthwhile.

I will certainly be keeping the Q6600 until results start coming in :)
Click to expand...

yeah but by the time results come in it might be hard to get hold of one, so its one or the other
 
Kirth Gersen said:
See here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html

Very interesting.

I drew 3 conclusions:

1. At stock it is about 7% faster on average than the Q6600.
2. Concerns about overclockability with that 7.5 multi.
3. At this point in time, most games still would benefit more from an E8500. The lack of real benefit with Crysis is an eye opener.
Click to expand...

interesting indeed.. it is faster, but slower at just photoshop and winrar apparently.

Hmm, even crysis benefits.. be it only a couple of fps though

still the multiplier puts it down
 
Kirth Gersen said:
See here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9300.html

Very interesting.

I drew 3 conclusions:

1. At stock it is about 7% faster on average than the Q6600.
2. Concerns about overclockability with that 7.5 multi.
3. At this point in time, most games still would benefit more from an E8500. The lack of real benefit with Crysis is an eye opener.
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed. This makes me feel slightly better about the pre order of the Q9450. Will be looking forward to other reviews that come out in the next couple of weeks.
 
tatts said:
By the looks of it, it all depends on what set up you currently have.
Most go's do 3.6ghz with little vcore (mine only needs 1.3V) & as nice as these new quads look, i would need faster ram & possibly a new mobo for simialr clocks and dont think there will be much performance gain (not enough to warrant the extra costs) but if you're coming from an amd system then it could be worthwhile.

I will certainly be keeping the Q6600 until results start coming in :)
Click to expand...

What is the ViD on your G0 cpu? Mine is a 1.275 and even at 1.41 i am still not stable at 3.42, and temps with a Tuniq at half fan speed go up 80 degrees during small FFTs.
 
1. At stock it is about 7% faster on average than the Q6600.
2. Concerns about overclockability with that 7.5 multi.
3. At this point in time, most games still would benefit more from an E8500. The lack of real benefit with Crysis is an eye opener.
Click to expand...
Why did they bench those games at such low resolutions ? 1024x768 may provide different quad results to a higher resolution. Besides, whats "crysys" ?

I think that the high fsb low multiplier combination really limits overclocks, and probably will do untill motherboards catch up. Guess they need to ramp up the FSB speed to make DDR3 seem more worthwhile though.

Do the chips themselves have fsb walls ?

Would be good to see a similar comparison using an q9450 though, see if the cache makes a big/any difference.
 
schumi84 said:
What is the ViD on your G0 cpu? Mine is a 1.275 and even at 1.41 i am still not stable at 3.42, and temps with a Tuniq at half fan speed go up 80 degrees during small FFTs.
Click to expand...

1.23V, does 3.3ghz on stock V :)
Your temps are proberly a problem at 80C imo

As anyone ordered one of these yorkies yet?
 
Bah given the fracas with the Wolfdale release, I think anyone would be foolish to shell out that sorta money for something that may exhibit the same problems as the e8*00 series.

Pay through the nose for an 0 day release product, that could be faulty anyway given it's dual core siblings failings and with numbers based on ES release chips... no thanks, been burnt once this year :( I know we put a lot of stock in these early reviews, and before it's paid off (e6*00 series namely) but after the flaky voltage and temp problems with the e8*00 series I'd rather wait and see what the overclocking community makes of it first. I trust their analysis a darn sight more than an ES fed review site.

2p :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom