Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770: Paper Tiger?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2007 9:09:29 AM

The GA-X38-DQ6 says it support 1600FSB so what is the problem with the x38 supporting this processor. Is this Intel just trying to make a quick buck.
November 19, 2007 9:13:55 AM

It'll still work 'unofficially' on the X38 board anyway...
November 19, 2007 9:22:05 AM

I did think that because that is one of the reasons why I am getting the x38 as well as PCI-E 2.0. Intel need to sort them selves out with there processors and north bridge chips.

Just incase somebody says wait for the x48 no I want my machine now.
Related resources
November 19, 2007 10:14:53 AM

Looks like Intel has a severe Netburst-K8 flashback.
November 19, 2007 11:20:32 AM

Good read. Things are really starting to get interesting. It also looks like Intel is very worried about the Phenom.
November 19, 2007 11:34:47 AM

After reading Anand's review.. I'm trying to figure out how the thermals jumped so high on this chip.
November 19, 2007 11:35:29 AM

Why would they be worried Phenom is slower clock for clock and 50%under clocked.
November 19, 2007 11:38:09 AM

bydesign said:
Why would they be worried Phenom is slower clock for clock and 50%under clocked.


Noone said they are worried about the performance crown. Intel should be pushing out their Q line Penryns... not QX.

Intel should be worried about competition in the sub $300 market.
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 11:59:29 AM

good point - the release of this chip was as pointless as the FX57.

Just shows the thermals are close to the boundary with a quad core over 3 Ghz ... getting into Pentium 4 EE / 6400+ space heater territory again.

Selling retail chips that hot is simply stupid.

Consider the fire hazzard ...

Fire that nervous Intel Exec who stupidly panicked the hive !!
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 12:03:55 PM

cnu - That kind of begs the question, though. On a 'most chip for dollar' basis: Since a Q6600 sells for $250~ish, and still beats Phenom by 15~30% depending on which column on the limited benchies I've seen so far.... Does Intel have anything to worry about??


Having said that: Where I *DO* see added value for an AMD based system is in Gaming on their new chipset. 4 GPU's would go a long, long, long way towards taming the newest games. Look at Dollar for Dollar on the whole system: A system with a $1200 Intel Extreme Quad plus $600~$1200 for one or two 8800 GTX's on one side. A $300 AMD Quad, and FOUR $400 ATI cards on the other. The first one makes a $2,400 hole. The second a $1,900 one. Implementation questions/drivers aside, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to see which offers the superior gaming setup per dollar spent.


This, of course, presumes that AMD wouldn't be stupid enough to licence SPIDER to Intel. Though conceivably they might not have a choice but to allow it under the existing ATI deal. From a business sense, I'd be VERY interested in seeing the delta between 'delays' in bringing Phenom/Spider to market, against the expiration date/terms of the Intel/ATI deal for Crossfire. Taking on the added risk of being late to market versus being contractually forced to licence your new 4-card chipset to your #1 competitor could be seen as a very sound and forward-looking choice.
November 19, 2007 12:04:14 PM

B.S. Intel has stuff under development that you could'nt believe, while AMD is struggling to clone all their stuff. The end is near.
November 19, 2007 12:07:39 PM

Scotteq said:
cnu - That kind of begs the question, though. On a 'most chip for dollar' basis: Since a Q6600 sells for $250~ish, and still beats Phenom by 15~30% depending on which column on the limited benchies I've seen so far.... Does Intel have anything to worry about??


Having said that: Where I *DO* see added value for an AMD based system is in Gaming on their new chipset. 4 GPU's would go a long, long, long way towards taming the newest games. Look at Dollar for Dollar on the whole system: A system with a $1200 Intel Extreme Quad plus $600~$1200 for one or two 8800 GTX's on one side. A $300 AMD Quad, and FOUR $400 ATI cards on the other. The first one makes a $2,400 hole. The second a $1,900 one. Implementation questions/drivers aside, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to see which offers the superior gaming setup per dollar spent.


This, of course, presumes that AMD wouldn't be stupid enough to licence SPIDER to Intel. Though conceivably they might not have a choice but to allow it under the existing ATI deal. From a business sense, I'd be VERY interested in seeing the delta between 'delays' in bringing Phenom/Spider to market, against the expiration date/terms of the Intel/ATI deal for Crossfire. Taking on the added risk of being late to market versus being contractually forced to licence your new 4-card chipset to your #1 competitor could be seen as a very sound and forward-looking choice.


Until of course you realize that the X38 Chipset supports full bandwidth CF. The HD3870X2 will be CF on a PCB and 2 of them will be quad CF with 2 GB Memory. Then.. you realize the X38 can also OC the Q6600 on it a lot further than the equivalent. Who needs Spider... Jan is supposed to release the HD3870X2s, along with Penryns and possibly the X48. However the X38 is out now.. and will be getting more and more mature while AMD struggles to get it's Phenom B3 out.

I like ATI video cards.
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 12:34:01 PM

cnumartyr said:
Until of course you realize that the X38 Chipset supports full bandwidth CF. The HD3870X2 will be CF on a PCB and 2 of them will be quad CF with 2 GB Memory. Then.. you realize the X38 can also OC the Q6600 on it a lot further than the equivalent. Who needs Spider... Jan is supposed to release the HD3870X2s, along with Penryns and possibly the X48. However the X38 is out now.. and will be getting more and more mature while AMD struggles to get it's Phenom B3 out.

I like ATI video cards.



Good points, all. And believe me when I say I'm no Fanboi. It may not matter, since this is a theoretical excercise at the moment since nobody has any of this stuff to test. And you are absolutely correct in questioning the ability to deliver in a timely manner.


It is true from a product~for~product performance perspective that currently Intel bends AMD over the knee, lifts the skirt, and SPANKS away. I'm just pointing out that: (1) There's more to selling a system than "just" the processor, that (2) from a Gaming perspective, we are GPU limited, not CPU, and (3) 1 Processor and 2~4 video cards all sold by the same company has the potential for much higher gaming performance *and* profits than 1 processor plus video cards from a company that is not Intel.

From a consumer perspective: Your target for gaming is high school/college aged peeps. They have limited funds, and e-peens. A "Double Quad" system can save some cash and provide the needed massaging... (Eeeewwww...) :heink: 


But lemme tell ya: If ever there was a way to light a fire under *both* Intel and nVidia's collective butts???? We just may see SLI + X38/48 after all!!! :o 

Hell - By the time this all shakes out, we may need an entirely new form factor for our boards and cases to fit all this stuff! 4 x16 PCi lanes, plus room/slots for a couple more devices, and a set of fans stolen from the local wind tunnel to keep it all under control!! I forsee massive savings on winter fuel oil bills and full coverage headphones for ALL!! :lol: 
November 19, 2007 12:38:23 PM

Hell yea.

Skulltrail will have SLI support. 8800 GTSX2 will be out in Feb to compete with ATI. It's just too bad that Intel is only planning to release QX's for the Skulltrail.

They would make a lot more money in the enthusiast market by even offering a Q lineup for the Skulltrail. That's the thing that irks me. As far as I remember Skulltrail will only get SLI support via a chip on the motherboard. If that is what is needed I doubt we will see it on the X38/48. Perhaps on a refresh or we can hope for some "alternate" solutions to running SLI on Intel Chipsets like in the past...
November 19, 2007 12:41:08 PM

Yep sort out their crappy CPU's to then forget about the chipset
November 19, 2007 12:53:20 PM

"Intel is offering an excellent CPU with the 45 nm Penryn processor - however, both the way these processors are being introduced and the sudden, seemingly haphazard change to their specifications are anything but consumer friendly. For now, the 45 nm technology remains unaffordable for buyers on a normal (read sane) budget.

Let's hope that the mid-range and budget 45 nm processors expected for 2008 are not all locked on FSB1600 - otherwise, users looking to upgrade will be forced to exchange their entire platform (X48 motherboard plus DDR3 memory), just to use a new processor."

All I can say is that this author is without a clue.

Before writing an article, he really should be required to read and watch at least a FEW of Intel's press releases and demos over the past few months.

The 1600FSB is not a "NEW announcement by Intel.
They announced AND DEMONSTRATED the 1600FSB MONTHS ago.

I will also tell the author that he can relax, since he is worried about all of Intels new Processor shipping next your being 1600FSB.

No, they will not be.
Intel has announced a range of Chips that are both 1333FSB and 1600FSB across quite a range of speeds.

Also, Is Intel Price Gauging on these chips a little?
Yes, to a certain extent.
They are just ramping their factories and have a limited supply of chips.
While stocks are built up pending the wide spread release, you will need to spend alot of money to get one.


This author also needs to stop fretting about the listed TDP.
Intel generally does not distinguish seperate TDPs for all of it's chips.
The TDP of the E2140 is the same as the E6750 even though the E2160 can't come close to putting off the same amount of heat due to 1/4 the cache. So, sorry, not the 136TDP is not all about power fluctuationss across different chips.

What it is most likely about is a sign Intel will be releasing 4.0+ Ghz versions of these chips at some point in time.

If the author had a clue, he would realize that most P965 boards can and have been able to run DDR2-800 at rated speed for a LONG time.
That is ALL that is required to get a FSB1600 speed.

The Power Usage of these chips are also quite low until you hit extreme OC's. Again, you are not going to burn these older Mobos unless you try to hit 4.0Ghz or beyond.

Sigh............
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2007 12:55:58 PM

Quote:
The HD3870X2 will be CF on a PCB and 2 of them will be quad CF with 2 GB Memory



cnu - Just popped into my head: If you think peeps whine *now* about seeing 3 GB of RAM when they bought 4!?!?!?! Since video counts towards the total, it's gonna be TWO when this happens. Ohhh Emmmm Geeee, what if we go for 4 2900XT's!!! That's 4GB of vRAM!!!

32 bit OS's may end up going away sooner, rather than later...
November 19, 2007 1:00:32 PM

Scotteq said:
Quote:
The HD3870X2 will be CF on a PCB and 2 of them will be quad CF with 2 GB Memory



cnu - Just popped into my head: If you think peeps whine *now* about seeing 3 GB of RAM when they bought 4!?!?!?! Since video counts towards the total, it's gonna be TWO when this happens. Ohhh Emmmm Geeee, what if we go for 4 2900XT's!!! That's 4GB of vRAM!!!

32 bit OS's may end up going away sooner, rather than later...


Lol.. I can see someone dropping 4 GB of RAM into Vista 32 and running 2 HD3870s in CF and saying "WHY DO I ONLY HAVE 2 GB OF MEMORY!?!

I think you are right though.. 64 seems to be the way for 2008. I'm still debating what to do. I'll probably end up selling my Blood Iron, dropping for an X38, dropping the Q6600 into it, running CF with Vista 64, and then rebuilding my XP32 rig with a Penryn for OCing goodness. Either way.. everything is going under water, I'm tired of the noise running my stuff on air cooling this high.

I think it'll look funny with 2 GPU blocks on a single PCB.. lol. I really hope they continue like they did on the regular 3870s... Seperate GPU/RAM Sinks was a GREAT idea and saves me money. I don't need to buy a full cover block or RAM Sinks. I give MAJOR props to ATI for that.
November 19, 2007 1:10:10 PM

Why should Intel be afraid of Phenom?
The best Phenom available bites the Q6600s dust and overall Phenom is even less competitive than K8.

Id say theres something wrong with those QX9770s... a 200 MHz increase in clock speed just CANNOT bump power consumption to 2.5x of the QX9650
November 19, 2007 2:27:22 PM

zenmaster said:
"Intel is offering an excellent CPU with the 45 nm Penryn processor - however, both the way these processors are being introduced and the sudden, seemingly haphazard change to their specifications are anything but consumer friendly. For now, the 45 nm technology remains unaffordable for buyers on a normal (read sane) budget.

Let's hope that the mid-range and budget 45 nm processors expected for 2008 are not all locked on FSB1600 - otherwise, users looking to upgrade will be forced to exchange their entire platform (X48 motherboard plus DDR3 memory), just to use a new processor."

All I can say is that this author is without a clue.

Before writing an article, he really should be required to read and watch at least a FEW of Intel's press releases and demos over the past few months.
....


My thoughts exactly. This guy sounds a little more than bitter that the Phenom is creeping into the world. If you read his article on the Phenom, his conclusion makes it sound like there is no choice but the Phenom. Even though the majority of the benchmarks show Core 2 faster clock for clock.

Seems like someone should have to review his article for truthfulness before it is posted.

Since when is an EE Core 2 priced at $1500? They are priced at $999... It's newegg or whomever marking the processor up due to demand.

More than that, the chip isn't released yet. Intel only released the NDA. Talk about making BS assumptions and calling it fact.

It's almost like the content of his articles were filled in months ago when it was believed that Phenom would surpass Core 2. Let's face facts buddy, Intel is not Satan. No matter how hot your butt gets from riding the AMD spin wagon, Core 2 simply is a kick ass processor. Just like the K8 was before it. And the Coppermine P3's before that.

If anything, AMD should have learned from Intel's fumblings with the P4 Prescott. ie. the loss of respect, the loss of credibity, etc. etc... Instead we are seeing the same thing from AMD in Phenom. A half assed, power hungry processor that doesn't live up to the company's 8 month old hype. Yet, if you listen to AMD, there is nothing wrong with the processor or the manufacturing process.... Weird, we have heard this before... Difference is, AMD should have known better. Its only been two years since someone else tried to put one past us.
November 19, 2007 4:55:43 PM

I'm not sure what's going on over there at Tom's lately. Intel writes them a letter on te eve of AMDs new processor release to say they have a new processor coming out (which doesn't even exist yet) and asks Tom's to benchmark an overclocked 9650 to show how fast this future CPU may theoretically be, and then write and article about it? I'm a big fan of Intel and I run Core2 chips, but its become plainly obvious that Tom's has become a puppet of Intel. I don't think its possible to take anything they write about CPUs subjectivly anymore.

By the way, I'm going to write them a letter telling them about this great new CPU I have been fabricating in my basment and ask them to simply use an overclocked 9650, double the performace results, and then write an article about it.. (how big a check should I include?)
November 19, 2007 5:49:05 PM

The "Paper Tiger" article didn't have to get approval by Intel to be published.

Can the same be said for the Phenom review?
November 19, 2007 6:47:02 PM

bydesign said:
Why would they be worried Phenom is slower clock for clock and 50%under clocked.

I agree with that. No reason to be worried.
November 19, 2007 7:04:12 PM

I don't trust any "review" site that would throw away their own journalistic integrity in order to get into some super secret room and look at things under an NDA which inorder to publish information on must be reviewed by the parent company and signed off on.
a c 123 à CPUs
November 19, 2007 9:25:08 PM

I don't think that a QX9650 will show what the chip can do. By 2008 I am sure that Intel will release a newer stepping that will cut power consumption and increase performance and OC'ing. Also there has to be something wrong with the QX9650 that Toms is using as they OCed it higher and got less power consuption. Then again they OC'ed using the FSB instead of the multiplier so power consumption will increase more that when OC'ing with the multiplier.

You have to remember that any "good" hardware site will have constant contact with hardware companies such as Intel/AMD or ATI/NVidia for news on upcoming products. But the reviewer did make too many assumptions and I don't think it will be answered untill the chip hits the market. I of course buy the high end CPUs(Q6600) instead but did get a P4 EE 3.4GHz(Northwood which rocked) for $150 but can't see paying $999+ for one.

The X38 will support a 1600 FSB per the mobo maker. Just like the P35 can support a 1333 FSB and Penryn but 1333 FSB is not officialy supported.

Phenom is having current leakages problems hence why they can't go above 2.4GHz. I don't really see why people and the article writer thinks Intel is worried. I think Intel is trying to show how the processor can scale. I am pretty sure Intel wants to release a 4GHz CPU but is trying to focus mainly on the mid to high end and efficiency.

Don't forget that the next architecture (Nehalem) is coming out later 2008 which will change a lot of things. This may be just a paper release but what has AMD done for quite a while? Untill recently AMD has been doing paper releases. But we shall see all in good time.
November 19, 2007 10:41:33 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Phenom is having current leakages problems hence why they can't go above 2.4GHz. I don't really see why people and the article writer thinks Intel is worried. I think Intel is trying to show how the processor can scale. I am pretty sure Intel wants to release a 4GHz CPU but is trying to focus mainly on the mid to high end and efficiency.

How is a $1500 cpu mid end or even high end? That's super high end there...Intel isn't worried and that's why they aren't releasing a 4ghz processor, which is possible to do right now. They are kicking back and relaxing.

Anyways I think Intel is getting awfully bold, they are pricing these extreme cpus at, uh, "extreme" prices. Amd needs to get their act together and teach Intel a lesson once again.
November 19, 2007 10:51:07 PM

Evilonigiri said:
How is a $1500 cpu mid end or even high end? That's super high end there...Intel isn't worried and that's why they aren't releasing a 4ghz processor, which is possible to do right now. They are kicking back and relaxing.

Anyways I think Intel is getting awfully bold, they are pricing these extreme cpus at, uh, "extreme" prices. Amd needs to get their act together and teach Intel a lesson once again.


Intel's Extreme Edition (EE) CPUs have always been priced $999 for tray. The retailers are the one's marking them up, not Intel.

Same with Phenom, now. The tray prices are what the reviews are using, but look around and you'll see some of them marked up. Directron has the 9600 going for $322, when MSRP is $289.

So, it's not Intel or AMD who are being bold, but the retailers who think that people will pay whatever they list the item for, and unfortunately, they are right.
November 20, 2007 2:27:19 PM

BSMonitor said:
My thoughts exactly. This guy sounds a little more than bitter that the Phenom is creeping into the world. If you read his article on the Phenom, his conclusion makes it sound like there is no choice but the Phenom. Even though the majority of the benchmarks show Core 2 faster clock for clock.

Seems like someone should have to review his article for truthfulness before it is posted.

Since when is an EE Core 2 priced at $1500? They are priced at $999... It's newegg or whomever marking the processor up due to demand.

More than that, the chip isn't released yet. Intel only released the NDA. Talk about making BS assumptions and calling it fact.

It's almost like the content of his articles were filled in months ago when it was believed that Phenom would surpass Core 2. Let's face facts buddy, Intel is not Satan. No matter how hot your butt gets from riding the AMD spin wagon, Core 2 simply is a kick ass processor. Just like the K8 was before it. And the Coppermine P3's before that.

If anything, AMD should have learned from Intel's fumblings with the P4 Prescott. ie. the loss of respect, the loss of credibity, etc. etc... Instead we are seeing the same thing from AMD in Phenom. A half assed, power hungry processor that doesn't live up to the company's 8 month old hype. Yet, if you listen to AMD, there is nothing wrong with the processor or the manufacturing process.... Weird, we have heard this before... Difference is, AMD should have known better. Its only been two years since someone else tried to put one past us.




Amen Brother!

Please no more AMD fanboy reviews.... I like AMD, shoot I had the Athlon XP's, 64, Opteron, and X2 but they all suck compared to the Core 2 and Quad Core's from Intel. I have looked at the benchmarks from AMD's latest and greatest and I was shocked to see just how crappy they are. To be honest with all the hype I would have rather they wait a year or so and come out with something that would at least equal several year old Intel CPU's! Get real dude, enjoy your slower Phenom and I will enjoy my NON Quad Core E6600 @ 3.2 that hangs just fine with Your Quad Core that I bought ages ago!!!! lol
November 20, 2007 3:30:39 PM

A paper tiger worrying for nothing indeed...AMD cannot strike back until its 45nm even with Phenom...
November 20, 2007 7:57:53 PM

Bad article. The author basically complains about having too many CPU's on the market? huge fail

Also to the guy that says we're GPU limited all I have to say is 8800GTX Ultra SLI. Terribad.Come on people you're making Toms look awfully uniformed these days.
December 8, 2007 5:24:29 AM

where did you [author?] get 136wTDP from? thats a communication error.

the spec is 130w, be happy to recieve a part much less than that

intel doesnt fear. intel dominates.

!