Q9300 reviewed

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Scoop
Well that's pretty nice, it overcomes the cache loss without a sweat. The lower multiplier is only an issue if you get a bad board, not the chips fault.

This couldn't be further from truth. All cpus have different FSB limitations, not just motherboards.

 

[Thor86]

It would have been nice if they compared the Q9300 and Q6600 at the same clock speeds to show the difference in performance with the lower cache, higher FSB.

Also the max FSB they attained was 467FSB on the Q9300 and this was using 2.0V on the CPU PLL setting! :Q

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Thor86
It would have been nice if they compared the Q9300 and Q6600 at the same clock speeds to show the difference in performance with the lower cache, higher FSB.

Also the max FSB they attained was 467FSB on the Q9300 and this was using 2.0V on the CPU PLL setting! :Q

yorkies are 10% higher clock per clock.

So you would need a 3.3ghz 12MEG cache yorkfield to match a 3.6ghz kentsfield.

Or a 3.6ghz yorkfield would = a 4.0ghz kentsfield.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

So to summarize prepping my cheap DS3L + CM 690 for a 45nm quad and some OCing, I should

1) Replace the TIM and NB/SB heatsinks.
2) Get another 120mm fan into the slot above the CPU to blow on the motherboard.
3) Put heatsinks on the mosfets (if I can find them)

Thank you aigomorla.

I'm 14, so my budget is kinda tight... No watercooling for me.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Thor86
It would have been nice if they compared the Q9300 and Q6600 at the same clock speeds to show the difference in performance with the lower cache, higher FSB.

Also the max FSB they attained was 467FSB on the Q9300 and this was using 2.0V on the CPU PLL setting! :Q

yorkies are 10% higher clock per clock.

So you would need a 3.3ghz 12MEG cache yorkfield to match a 3.6ghz kentsfield.

Or a 3.6ghz yorkfield would = a 4.0ghz kentsfield.

Does the 10% clock per clock advantage include the higher FSB though?

Because when overclocking that advantage is pretty much gone, itll come down to cache, clockspeed, and of course, SSE4.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Thor86
It would have been nice if they compared the Q9300 and Q6600 at the same clock speeds to show the difference in performance with the lower cache, higher FSB.

Also the max FSB they attained was 467FSB on the Q9300 and this was using 2.0V on the CPU PLL setting! :Q

yorkies are 10% higher clock per clock.

So you would need a 3.3ghz 12MEG cache yorkfield to match a 3.6ghz kentsfield.

Or a 3.6ghz yorkfield would = a 4.0ghz kentsfield.

I'm talking about the 2x3MB cache Q9300, not a QX9650 with 2x6mb cache. We already know higher cache equates better performance clock for clock in cpu speeds.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
So to summarize prepping my cheap DS3L + CM 690 for a 45nm quad and some OCing, I should

1) Replace the TIM and NB/SB heatsinks.
2) Get another 120mm fan into the slot above the CPU to blow on the motherboard.
3) Put heatsinks on the mosfets (if I can find them)

Thank you aigomorla.

I'm 14, so my budget is kinda tight... No watercooling for me.

I can also attest that MOSFET cooling is extremely important if you are overclocking a quad. RIP GA-965P-DS3R, i RMAd the board and then sold the replacement on FS/FT and got one with native MOSFET cooling. See sig

 

[Apocalypse23]

I think personally intel knew about E8400's success of overclocking and didn't want to repeat the same move with the new 45nm Quads, i.e using 9 as a multiplier thereby requiring your most common and cheap ddr2 800 memory for your highest 4ghz attainable and more overclocks. With 7-8.5 as multipliers in these new chips, it's just pushing the market on higher quality ram like ddr3 or something more than just pc2 6400, which is whatever i think...like they said in the review posted that you now need to fiddle with NB voltage settings as well and all this voltage raising requires you now to have a moterboard with bigger and better NB heatsinks such as the Asus maximum they mentioned, i think this is all a strategy to push to newer products when intel could have simply just created an E8400 version of these new quads and we would all be happy and dandy.

I'm like meh @ this news but whatever. Kills the need for ddr2 800 mem in my opinion now.

...qx9650 FTW!!!

 

[bryanW1995]

Glad to see the ip 35 pro info, I'm planning to get a Q9450 when they become available. I'm not greedy on clocks, however, I learned my lesson with my e6750 If I get 3.5+ 24/7 stable on seti at reasonable voltages I'll be happy.

All this talk about p35 DQ6's is making me regret saving that $50...

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: JAG87
yippeee, just like I predicted. no high clocks for mainstream chips this time around.

spot on

 

[Riverhound777]

My DS3L is running fine so far at 450x9 on my E8400 at stock mobo voltages for 3 weeks. But I don't run it 24/7 and It is only under load for maybe 3 hours when gaming. Can I expect any issues?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Riverhound777
My DS3L is running fine so far at 450x9 on my E8400 at stock mobo voltages for 3 weeks. But I don't run it 24/7 and It is only under load for maybe 3 hours when gaming. Can I expect any issues?

Unlikely, the main problem is with overclocked quads and their enormous power consumption.

An E8400 is one of the lowest power draw CPUs in the core 2 fleet