Q9550-s Stable at 450 FSB x 8.5 .. can i get more ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: apoppin
---the only thing i do not understand

why is the "S" 9550 priced $100 more than the regular one - it isn't like you are saving 30w 24/7 or that it overclocks much better than the regular one

:confused:

The part about it overclocking just as well as a regular one is not likely to remain a valid assumption.

What do you think retail Q9550's (the 95W TDP ones) are now going to overclock like given that Intel has now started binning out all the nice low-voltage low-TDP ones?

My expectation is that future retail Q9550 consumers are going to be rather dissapointed in the lackluster overclock they are going to be getting now that the retail stream is enriched with higher VID/higher TDP parts relative to the odds we have been playing up till now.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
---the only thing i do not understand

why is the "S" 9550 priced $100 more than the regular one - it isn't like you are saving 30w 24/7 or that it overclocks much better than the regular one

:confused:

The part about it overclocking just as well as a regular one is not likely to remain a valid assumption.

What do you think retail Q9550's (the 95W TDP ones) are now going to overclock like given that Intel has now started binning out all the nice low-voltage low-TDP ones?

My expectation is that future retail Q9550 consumers are going to be rather dissapointed in the lackluster overclock they are going to be getting now that the retail stream is enriched with higher VID/higher TDP parts relative to the odds we have been playing up till now.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3505

"...and in case you?re wondering, no, they don?t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn?t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review."

that is what HE SAID
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
Originally posted by: geokilla
I never changed anything when overclocking my E7200 besides the vcore. I don't think you guys need to change anything either...

@apoppin. I think 1.35V under OCCT load would be good enough for a Q9550s. Anymore and I'd worry about frying the chip. Just make sure that the temps are at or under 65C.

Overclocking dual cores is VASTLY different from a quad.

Originally posted by: taltamir
i got the new 65w q9550 e/s...
450x8.5
isn't the whole point of getting an engineering sample to have an unlocked multiplier so you can OC it by raising it without increasing the vcore?

Anyways, check the temps on your northbridge. I found them to be problematic in my case.

ES chips are NOT unlocked.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
---the only thing i do not understand

why is the "S" 9550 priced $100 more than the regular one - it isn't like you are saving 30w 24/7 or that it overclocks much better than the regular one

:confused:

The part about it overclocking just as well as a regular one is not likely to remain a valid assumption.

What do you think retail Q9550's (the 95W TDP ones) are now going to overclock like given that Intel has now started binning out all the nice low-voltage low-TDP ones?

My expectation is that future retail Q9550 consumers are going to be rather dissapointed in the lackluster overclock they are going to be getting now that the retail stream is enriched with higher VID/higher TDP parts relative to the odds we have been playing up till now.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3505

"...and in case you?re wondering, no, they don?t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn?t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review."

that is what HE SAID

I'm not expecting people who haven't worked in fabs to understand things as complicated as clockspeed distributions and the physics behind shmoo plots...but I am talking about FUTURE retail Q9550 chips, they will lack the premium part of the clockspeed vs. Vcc distribution that is now being binned out for these "s" chips.

Of course the past Q9550 that were sold also had these same "s" chips in the distribution...so no surprise to me that people who currently have Q9550 which overclock well are found to overclock as well as Q9550s's...but my expectation is that FUTURE Q9550's will not be observed to overclock nearly so well as these future Q9550 chips are going to be the ones with the higher VID tail and utterly lacking the lower VID tail.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
---the only thing i do not understand

why is the "S" 9550 priced $100 more than the regular one - it isn't like you are saving 30w 24/7 or that it overclocks much better than the regular one

:confused:

The part about it overclocking just as well as a regular one is not likely to remain a valid assumption.

What do you think retail Q9550's (the 95W TDP ones) are now going to overclock like given that Intel has now started binning out all the nice low-voltage low-TDP ones?

My expectation is that future retail Q9550 consumers are going to be rather dissapointed in the lackluster overclock they are going to be getting now that the retail stream is enriched with higher VID/higher TDP parts relative to the odds we have been playing up till now.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3505

"...and in case you?re wondering, no, they don?t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn?t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review."

that is what HE SAID

I'm not expecting people who haven't worked in fabs to understand things as complicated as clockspeed distributions and the physics behind shmoo plots...but I am talking about FUTURE retail Q9550 chips, they will lack the premium part of the clockspeed vs. Vcc distribution that is now being binned out for these "s" chips.

Of course the past Q9550 that were sold also had these same "s" chips in the distribution...so no surprise to me that people who currently have Q9550 which overclock well are found to overclock as well as Q9550s's...but my expectation is that FUTURE Q9550's will not be observed to overclock nearly so well as these future Q9550 chips are going to be the ones with the higher VID tail and utterly lacking the lower VID tail.

I don't understand any of that geek talk but, i will probably be the same as the Q6600 G0's. Earlier G0's were monster overclockers with low VID but later batches with higher 1.325VID's were horrid overclockers. Many got a "G0" thinking 3.6+ was easy only to find out most 1.325VID parts could barely muster 3.2-3.4GHz.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
59
91
Originally posted by: Gillbot
I don't understand any of that geek talk but, i will probably be the same as the Q6600 G0's. Earlier G0's were monster overclockers with low VID but later batches with higher 1.325VID's were horrid overclockers. Many got a "G0" thinking 3.6+ was easy only to find out most 1.325VID parts could barely muster 3.2-3.4GHz.

It's 100% exactly the same device physics at play. Great example Gillbot.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
---the only thing i do not understand

why is the "S" 9550 priced $100 more than the regular one - it isn't like you are saving 30w 24/7 or that it overclocks much better than the regular one

:confused:

The part about it overclocking just as well as a regular one is not likely to remain a valid assumption.

What do you think retail Q9550's (the 95W TDP ones) are now going to overclock like given that Intel has now started binning out all the nice low-voltage low-TDP ones?

My expectation is that future retail Q9550 consumers are going to be rather dissapointed in the lackluster overclock they are going to be getting now that the retail stream is enriched with higher VID/higher TDP parts relative to the odds we have been playing up till now.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3505

"...and in case you?re wondering, no, they don?t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn?t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review."

that is what HE SAID

I'm not expecting people who haven't worked in fabs to understand things as complicated as clockspeed distributions and the physics behind shmoo plots...but I am talking about FUTURE retail Q9550 chips, they will lack the premium part of the clockspeed vs. Vcc distribution that is now being binned out for these "s" chips.

Of course the past Q9550 that were sold also had these same "s" chips in the distribution...so no surprise to me that people who currently have Q9550 which overclock well are found to overclock as well as Q9550s's...but my expectation is that FUTURE Q9550's will not be observed to overclock nearly so well as these future Q9550 chips are going to be the ones with the higher VID tail and utterly lacking the lower VID tail.

again it is not what *I* said :p

i asked for clarification and SickBeast gave the best reply imo

reviewers tend to base their conclusions on their one or two experiences .. which is bad
- on my limited experience with ONE sample, i would say that you should not expect a better OC than the regular "lucky" q9550 that have been released UP-Till now ;)

i imagine the best of the die is NOW reserved for 's' Quads .. however, they do not necessarily OC "better" than the decent OC'ers we got before .. they are less likely to be "dogs" .. however, i don't see an enthusiast paying a $100 premium for it

otoh, oem rackmount system builders will
- i made that clear in my own article

rose.gif