Comparing the 45nm Quad Cores

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Stock speed, yeah the QX9770 is better. But once you factor ocing in, the average QX9650 will win.

Since you don't seem to have clicked on the link yet, I'll just quote it for you:

This time we?ve compared two CPUs: Core2Quad Q9300 (this is the bottom model of current lineup) and Core2Extreme QX9650 (the top model of current lineup).

Now, this was posted on May 5, 2008. My point all along had nothing to do with which I would buy, because I'd never buy either, and it definitely had nothing to do with overclocking, which they didn't do.

My point was, I'd never trust a website that A) doesn't even know what the fastest CPU a given company makes, and much more importantly, B) uses a midrange video card (that's actually slower than my video card) as the deciding factor between which CPU is faster. Like I keep saying, if they'd used this ATI 7000, or my old GF2, don't you think that every single FPS benmark would have been identical, between the two CPU's?

Or, to phrase it differently, gaming CPU benchmarks are absolutely worthless, if you don't use the fastest video card available at that time. I.E., if the video card can't keep up with the processor, of course you'll get identical FPS, but not because the two CPU's are in fact identical in speed, but only because both are faster than said video card. I never would have mentioned the CPU, which I only brought up because I thought it funny, if they had used a video card that was appropriate.

lol.... okey myo you deserve to sink me on that dunking chair.

Yeah i missed your whole point.

 

[semisonic9]

My current read on the situations is that, unless you're going for one of the extreme chips, the q6600 remains the best purchase for those looking to overclock.

It also kind of explains why q6600 prices took a brief dip (could be had for $180 there for awhile), and now the OEM and boxed chips are both going for $219 on the egg. *sigh*

If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, or show me a 45nm quad chip that beats the q6600 in bang (or bang/buck), please let me know.

~Semi

 

[bryanW1995]

@aigo, hey, can you clock your Q9650 down to 7.5x454 and run the x264 and cinebench r10 benchmarks? Also, keep mem at 5-5-5-15 1:1 as foxery had it. I'm curious to see how we compare.

 

[OLpal]

Again your entitled to your opinion ;, to state InsideHW is a untrustworthy website & their findings are worthless, based on your nitpicking those 2 issues.. Is ridiculous.... As i stated before most builders don't buy the top 11 cards for price / performance best buy !! By your own words the 8800gts is the 12th fastest video card [don't see where that makes it a P.O.S. card] & would not give real world seat of the pants comparson table on these Quad processors .. I'm withese other folks, i'd put my money on the QX9650 as being their top of the line chip.. [cost/performance of 9770 don't add-up]
Aigo needs not apologize for post, it's truthfull & usefull ..
Can you make a usefull post on these chips or benches myocardia ??

Go in Peace Brother; Ol'Pal

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Stock speed, yeah the QX9770 is better. But once you factor ocing in, the average QX9650 will win.

Since you don't seem to have clicked on the link yet, I'll just quote it for you:

This time we?ve compared two CPUs: Core2Quad Q9300 (this is the bottom model of current lineup) and Core2Extreme QX9650 (the top model of current lineup).

Now, this was posted on May 5, 2008. My point all along had nothing to do with which I would buy, because I'd never buy either, and it definitely had nothing to do with overclocking, which they didn't do.

My point was, I'd never trust a website that A) doesn't even know what the fastest CPU a given company makes, and much more importantly, B) uses a midrange video card (that's actually slower than my video card) as the deciding factor between which CPU is faster. Like I keep saying, if they'd used this ATI 7000, or my old GF2, don't you think that every single FPS benmark would have been identical, between the two CPU's?

Or, to phrase it differently, gaming CPU benchmarks are absolutely worthless, if you don't use the fastest video card available at that time. I.E., if the video card can't keep up with the processor, of course you'll get identical FPS, but not because the two CPU's are in fact identical in speed, but only because both are faster than said video card. I never would have mentioned the CPU, which I only brought up because I thought it funny, if they had used a video card that was appropriate.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: OLpal
Again your entitled to your opinion ;, to state InsideHW is a untrustworthy website & their findings are worthless, based on your nitpicking those 2 issues.. Is ridiculous....

Uhh, if you actually understood what you just quoted, you wouldn't even have posted this post. Try reading it again.

As i stated before most builders don't buy the top 11 cards for price / performance best buy !! By your own words the 8800gts is the 12th fastest video card [don't see where that makes it a P.O.S. card] & would not give real world seat of the pants comparson table on these Quad processors

Oh, so you'd use a 6200LE, to benchmark FPS, when comparing CPU's? That actually doesn't surprise me.

i'd put my money on the QX9650 as being their top of the line chip.. [cost/performance of 9770 don't add-up]

You're actually the one who wrote that article, aren't you? You did a piss-poor job of it.

Can you make a usefull post on these chips or benches myocardia ??

As a matter of fact, I can. Read my last 5 posts in this thread.

 

[OLpal]

My Cinbench R10 Scores
E8400 @ 3.6ghz [9x400]

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 6.0.6000

Graphics Card : GeForce 8800 GT/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 4394 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8380 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.91

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 5704 CB-GFX


***************************************************************************
Ol'Pal


BryanW1995
ok, my two results on the Q9450 @ 3.4, xp pro sp2 (in signature)


Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 74.01 fps, 3904.67 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.47 fps, 3952.97 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 80.67 fps, 3887.37 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.05 fps, 3963.57 kb/s


cinebench:
3792: 1 cpu
13205 : all cpus
multiprocessor speedup: 3.48

___________________________________________________________________________
Foxery
Initial results, Q9300 @ 3.4 GHz with my normal 5-5-5 timings (I'll try other settings another day)
Long logs chopped to the best of multiple runs
Minimum idle core temp: 40C

Cooler is a Xigmatek S1283, very similar design to Bryan's Tuniq.
Motherboard is an ABit IP35-Pro. Only difference from Bryan's is a few extra SATA ports and a 2nd Ethernet controller. Yay.

*****
Graysky's X264
*****

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 73.07 fps, 3904.55 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.43 fps, 3952.83 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 79.15 fps, 3887.61 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 22.96 fps, 3962.92 kb/s

Highest core temperature recorded: 57C, per RealTemp v2.48


*****
CineBench R10
*****

Rendering (Single CPU): 3746 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 13008 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.47
Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6621 CB-GFX

Highest core temperature recorded: 55C, per RealTemp v2.48



*************************************************************************
Aigomorla { did you clock down to 3.4 ghz like foxery & BryanW1995 ??????}
Heres my HD Benchmark, however my system was running a tad bit slow by looking at the delta between the first and second test.

x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 83.15 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 82.99 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 83.29 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 83.44 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.11 fps, 3953.18 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.11 fps, 3953.18 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.04 fps, 3953.18 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.03 fps, 3953.18 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 90.04 fps, 3889.32 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.30 fps, 3887.16 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.48 fps, 3889.28 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 90.31 fps, 3888.84 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.04 fps, 3962.83 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.08 fps, 3963.41 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.07 fps, 3962.58 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 27.06 fps, 3963.07 kb/s


_________________________________________________________________________
GuitarDaddy has put up some #'s to compare with !! Thanks..

Heres my X3350 @ 3.6

CineBench R10
*****

Rendering (Single CPU): 3996 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 14118 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.53


X264
******

x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 76.27 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 21.61 fps, 3953.18 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 82.18 fps, 3887.39 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.22 fps, 3963.33 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Xeon X3350
Codename Yorkfield
Specification Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz
Core Stepping C1
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2666 MHz
Core Speed 3598.2 MHz (8.0 x 449.8 MHz)
FID range 6.0x - 8.0x

Northbridge Intel P965/G965 rev. C1
Southbridge Intel 82801HB/HR (ICH8/R) rev. 02

CAS# 5.0
RAS# to CAS# 5
RAS# Precharge 5
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Command Rate 2T
Memory Frequency 449.8 MHz (1:1)
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 2048 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)


Here is 3.4ghz

CineBench R10
*****

Rendering (Single CPU): 3774 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 13346 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.54


X264
*******
x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 72.44 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.48 fps, 3953.18 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 78.61 fps, 3889.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.01 fps, 3962.50 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Xeon X3350
Codename Yorkfield
Specification Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz
Core Stepping C1
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2666 MHz
Core Speed 3408.6 MHz (8.0 x 426.1 MHz)
FID range 6.0x - 8.0x

Northbridge Intel P965/G965 rev. C1
Southbridge Intel 82801HB/HR (ICH8/R) rev. 02

CAS# 4.0
RAS# to CAS# 4
RAS# Precharge 4
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Command Rate 2T
Memory Frequency 426.1 MHz (1:1)
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 2048 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)



Comparing my 3.4 to Brians 3.4 he bests me by 2fps in the first pass X264, but we are dead even on the second pass. On Cinebench he wins the single CPU and I win the Multi, I suppose these are differences P35 vs P965 and ram timings

 

[OLpal]

myocardia, lets never cross posts again.. i don't understand you !
i have no ties to insidehw, they are human & didn't meet your guidlines.. Sorry for ya !!
their video card is not as nice as yours or mine.. they still did a good job with what they had !
Myself & others have wanted a comparo on these chips for some time now,, & all you can do is be negative & disruptive !!!!
If you can't be positive & contribute to the forum.. then i'd just as soon not read your posts !

Peace be with you !! Ol'Pal

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Or, to phrase it differently, gaming CPU benchmarks are absolutely worthless, if you don't use the fastest video card available at that time.

How fortunate, then, that only 2 out of 16 benchmarks they used actually require a video card. (The 8800GTS is also far from a terrible card.)

The differences between an unlocked 9770 and an unlocked 9650 are meaningless. Stop exaggerating so much and derailing the thread.

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
@aigo, hey, can you clock your Q9650 down to 7.5x454 and run the x264 and cinebench r10 benchmarks? Also, keep mem at 5-5-5-15 1:1 as foxery had it. I'm curious to see how we compare.

Your board might let you choose 7.5X on your chip, if you're bored. I could try other CPU speeds or RAM timings if anyone wants more detailed results, but I think we've answered the main question about Cache differences.

If there are any other (free) benchmarks whose results are meaningful, let me know. I can't think of any that aren't purely synthetic junk like 3DMark, Sandra, etc.

 

[bryanW1995]

yes, it will let me do that. I'll do it sunday when I get home, I know that my ip35 pro is stable at 454 fsb but haven't tested the ip35e that high yet.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: OLpal
they still did a good job with what they had !

Actually, they didn't. It's very misleading to use a slow video card, in a CPU FPS* test. That was my point all along. If they had done the same article, with no mention of gaming (because they had too slow of a video card), nothing would ever have been said about their slow video card.

Myself & others have wanted a comparo on these chips for some time now,, & all you can do is be negative & disruptive !!!!

I wasn't negative, until you were negative. BTW, the way you, BrianW, and Aigomorla are doing the comparisons yourselves is the correct way to do a comparison, assuming you have the required hardware.



*FPS= Frames Per Second

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Foxery
How fortunate, then, that only 2 out of 16 benchmarks they used actually require a video card.

Then it was utterly ignorant of them to even try to do any gaming benchmarks then, wasn't it? I think it would have been a fine comparison, with only 14 benchmarks, instead of 14 useful ones, and two useless ones.

(The 8800GTS is also far from a terrible card.)

I never said it was, but if it isn't fast enough to keep up with the CPU's it shouldn't be used.

The differences between an unlocked 9770 and an unlocked 9650 are meaningless. Stop exaggerating so much and derailing the thread.

Learn to read, bub. It might actually benefit you, at some point in your life.

 

[bryanW1995]

guys, myocardia is right about everything except how to spell my name. that comparison was conducted by amateurs, we're more apt to get good info from these comparisons that we're running than from them. I don't think that he's derailing the thread at all, he's just stating his opinion and getting jumped on for it.

 

[aigomorla]

i would never be negative towrds myo unless he told me that you didnt needed a quad to play supreme commander @ max settings. Or he said human salava makes the best coolant for h2o system.

Then i would break all hell on him. LOL


Nah seriously myo brings good data. He's one person i tend to believe without double checking.

IF you guys want to know who always shuts me up, its Yoxxy or Ruby.
Sorry, there isnt something that they don't know, if they act like they dont know, its cuz there hiding.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Heres my X3350 @ 3.6

CineBench R10
*****

Rendering (Single CPU): 3996 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 14118 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.53


X264
******

x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 76.27 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 21.61 fps, 3953.18 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 82.18 fps, 3887.39 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 24.22 fps, 3963.33 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Xeon X3350
Codename Yorkfield
Specification Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz
Core Stepping C1
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2666 MHz
Core Speed 3598.2 MHz (8.0 x 449.8 MHz)
FID range 6.0x - 8.0x

Northbridge Intel P965/G965 rev. C1
Southbridge Intel 82801HB/HR (ICH8/R) rev. 02

CAS# 5.0
RAS# to CAS# 5
RAS# Precharge 5
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Command Rate 2T
Memory Frequency 449.8 MHz (1:1)
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 2048 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)


Here is 3.4ghz

CineBench R10
*****

Rendering (Single CPU): 3774 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 13346 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.54


X264
*******
x264 HD BENCHMARK RESULTS
Please copy/paste everything below the line into the forum post to report your data
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 72.44 fps, 3904.62 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 20.48 fps, 3953.18 kb/s

Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 78.61 fps, 3889.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 23.01 fps, 3962.50 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Xeon X3350
Codename Yorkfield
Specification Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz
Core Stepping C1
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2666 MHz
Core Speed 3408.6 MHz (8.0 x 426.1 MHz)
FID range 6.0x - 8.0x

Northbridge Intel P965/G965 rev. C1
Southbridge Intel 82801HB/HR (ICH8/R) rev. 02

CAS# 4.0
RAS# to CAS# 4
RAS# Precharge 4
Cycle Time (tRAS) 18
Command Rate 2T
Memory Frequency 426.1 MHz (1:1)
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 2048 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)



Comparing my 3.4 to Brians 3.4 he bests me by 2fps in the first pass X264, but we are dead even on the second pass. On Cinebench he wins the single CPU and I win the Multi, I suppose these are differences P35 vs P965 and ram timings

 

[aigomorla]

bryan give me some time on your test request.

I havent finished putting perseph inside her shell yet.

She's still naked with the radiator externally connected. :T I had to do a gpu swap, i havent gotten to it yet. :T

 

[OLpal]

Would like to thank Foxery, BryanW1995, Aigomorla, GuitarDaddy for posting their score for comparison .. Hope that more will post their scores @ 3.4ghz on the Quads..
Also would be helpfull for me & others, what coolers works & fits which motherboard you have !!

There are probably alot of variables between all of these systems, which i feel gives us a good basis.... Yes even video card capabilities do vary!!
Looks like the E8400 does Okay on the single processor test, but you guys smoke it on multi-processor test... {sorry so far iv'e only gotten the Cinebench R 10 to work}
Which shows the superiority of the Quads over the Core2Duos on software which makes use of multi-core!!
Also points to where Foxery w/ his Q9300 runs with the bigger kids just fine @ the same ghz.. I thought the difference in Cache would show more difference than this !!

Thanks Again Guys,, & let's see more scores from others !! Ol'Pal


also remember you can see more results here !!
Hey Guys here is the official Graysky X264 page & it has lots of users reporting their results..
You'll have to explain to me how your results fall into which column though !!

http://www.techarp.com/showart...tno=442&pgno=0#Results

 

[Idontcare]

This thread is an asset to the AT forum. Thanks for the contributions everyone and managing the thread Olpal. Just goes to show what a handful of enthusiasts and some elbow grease can accomplish when motivated to do so.

 

[myocardia]

I think you guys might be interested in running the NuclearMC CPU benchmark. It's multithreaded, and more importantly, it uses more than one capability of the processors (the equivalent of using different types of apps), and is also easy to use. It doesn't even need to be installed, just ran. You can get it here, if you're interested.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: OLpal
Also would be helpfull for me & others, what coolers works & fits which motherboard you have !!

Check the Cases & Cooling section and do some reading before buying coolers. The heatpipes we use are freaking enormous, and a tight fit, to say the least.

I found this site very helpful: http://www.frostytech.com

Also points to where Foxery w/ his Q9300 runs with the bigger kids just fine @ the same ghz.. I thought the difference in Cache would show more difference than this !!

I'm just thrilled to justify why I bought this chip. I read some reviews around the web which compared the performance of Dual-core chips with different amounts of cache, and they showed the 4000 series and 6000 series very close to each other. Here's what I reasoned out in another thread:

If you guess that each pair of cores roughly splits L2 usage in half, (for the sake of argument, I don't care to nitpick the accuracy for real apps,)
E2100 = 1MB/2 = 0.5MB
E4000 = 2MB/2 = 1MB
Q9300 = 6MB/4 = 1.5MB
E6000 = 4MB/2 = 2MB
Q6600 = 8MB/4 = 2MB (same as above)
Q9450 = 12MB/4 = 3MB (more than ever before, wonder if it has much effect?)

Victory is mine!

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I think you guys might be interested in running the NuclearMC CPU benchmark. It's multithreaded, and more importantly, it uses more than one capability of the processors (the equivalent of using different types of apps), and is also easy to use. It doesn't even need to be installed, just ran. You can get it here, if you're interested.

rawr!

i like Wprime
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...3/aigomorla/Wprime.jpg


Ummm... your probably guessing how im pulling those temps:

Teaser:
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0900.jpg

:T

 

[imported_ST]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: OLpal
Also would be helpfull for me & others, what coolers works & fits which motherboard you have !!

Check the Cases & Cooling section and do some reading before buying coolers. The heatpipes we use are freaking enormous, and a tight fit, to say the least.

I found this site very helpful: http://www.frostytech.com

Foxery - What HSF setup do you use? For your speed and voltage, I am astounded at your temps...and I concur what you say about the Q9300, quite a bang for the buck!

 

[Foxery]

Here's a direct link:
FrostyTech Review

Here's their review of Bryan's Tuniq.

Mine came from Newegg for US$40. There is also the smaller S963, which uses a 90mm fan instead of 120mm. The performance is nearly the same, and I wish I'd gone with the smaller one for the ease of installing it, and to give some extra clearance/room for error around the case and motherboard.

Also make sure to get a $4 tube of good thermal paste to fill in some sizable gaps on the bottom. Xigmatek provides some, but I'm not sure what material it is.

 

[OLpal]

You Rock Foxery !!
This cooling solution site is exactly what i was looking for !! Thank You, Very Much !!

Your Q9300 does very well compared to the others all clocked @ same speeds even though you have the 3850 video card.. Your system is running COOL & FAST & you should be very HAPPY with your selection & execution of your build !! Kudos, to you !

Ol'Pal

Originally posted by: Foxery

Check the Cases & Cooling section and do some reading before buying coolers. The heatpipes we use are freaking enormous, and a tight fit, to say the least.

I found this site very helpful: http://www.frostytech.com

Also points to where Foxery w/ his Q9300 runs with the bigger kids just fine @ the same ghz.. I thought the difference in Cache would show more difference than this !!

I'm just thrilled to justify why I bought this chip. I read some reviews around the web which compared the performance of Dual-core chips with different amounts of cache, and they showed the 4000 series and 6000 series very close to each other. Here's what I reasoned out in another thread:

If you guess that each pair of cores roughly splits L2 usage in half, (for the sake of argument, I don't care to nitpick the accuracy for real apps,)
E2100 = 1MB/2 = 0.5MB
E4000 = 2MB/2 = 1MB
Q9300 = 6MB/4 = 1.5MB
E6000 = 4MB/2 = 2MB
Q6600 = 8MB/4 = 2MB (same as above)
Q9450 = 12MB/4 = 3MB (more than ever before, wonder if it has much effect?)

Hey Foxery Explain this to me !! It's not registering with me !!
Brain Cloud, I HAVE !! Ol'Pal

Victory is mine! ,

 

[bryanW1995]

Nuclearus multi core v 2.0.0 rc1
alu 6471
fpu 8263
MT score 4T: 27684

total score: 20417



wprime 32m 11.89

 

[OLpal]

Hey Foxery I've made the decision to go with the same fan/heatsink that you did Foxery...
Soon as i find out f it will fit the new Asus P45 P5Q-E with clearance..
Will be sitting on Q9550 [as soon as price cut]
I bought a 500 gig WD energy saver HD & have 2 gig of Mushkin memory
More than likely a new 4850 video card
That frosty tech site is really usefull ! Thanks.

Ol'Pal

Originally posted by: Foxery
Here's a direct link:
FrostyTech Review

Here's their review of Bryan's Tuniq.

Mine came from Newegg for US$40. There is also the smaller S963, which uses a 90mm fan instead of 120mm. The performance is nearly the same, and I wish I'd gone with the smaller one for the ease of installing it, and to give some extra clearance/room for error around the case and motherboard.

Also make sure to get a $4 tube of good thermal paste to fill in some sizable gaps on the bottom. Xigmatek provides some, but I'm not sure what material it is.