Q9450 8X multiplier?

[goodie]

i've read the Q9450 is only going to have an 8X multiplier!!
maybe its just me or is this going to make it a crap overclocker?
am i better off with a Q6600 G0 9X multiplier?

 

[cnumartyr]

i've read the Q9450 is only going to have an 8X multiplier!!
maybe its just me or is this going to make it a crap overclocker?
am i better off with a Q6600 G0 9X multiplier?

Yes and No.

Don't know what kind of FSB wall the Q9450 will have.

It might clock just as high as a Q6600 with a higher Bus and less heat generation.

 

[goodie]

you would need a 450FSB just to hit 3.6 which is what most people are hitting on Q6600 running 400FSB X9

 

[ffffff]

Except the problem is that the Q9450 has 1333 FSB at 2.66 ghz. That means to overclock to 3.2 ghz you need to raise the FSB to 1600. 1600 is already pretty high for a lot of the motherboards... OCing to 3.6 ghz would probably be out of the question for most motherboards because that would require 1800 FSB.

 

[cnumartyr]

you would need a 450FSB just to hit 3.6 which is what most people are hitting on Q6600 running 400FSB X9

Really? I had no idea.

Seriously though on air the limit is about 3.6 for a Q6600. The Q9450 might clock higher, who knows.

This die shrink is pretty much looking like a skip for me. Thanks be to Intel for making it a 1333 FSB.

Anyways.. I know what you are saying, it's been a debate for a while now. 500x8 is still 4.0 GHz... and the Q9450s on a good motherboard might do that.

 

[goodie]

what boards can do 500FSB stable? X48 maybe?
i know X38 can get there with a lot of tinkering!
bit of a novice overclocker because of my current mobo (totally crap overclocker)
i was gonna get Q6600 & maximus formula this side of Xmas but dont know what to do now???

 

[cnumartyr]

what boards can do 500FSB stable? X48 maybe?
i know X38 can get there with a lot of tinkering!
bit of a novice overclocker because of my current mobo (totally crap overclocker)
i was gonna get Q6600 & maximus formula this side of Xmas but dont know what to do now???

I've seen some X38s and P35s getting close.

440-450 on quads. I have my fingers crossed that we'll be able to get 500 with a more mature BIOS and maybe seperate GTL Ref per die. It's been obvious for a while that the Q9450 would be limited more by it's FSB wall than thermals anyway.

 

[Gir37]

well of course the X48 will. Why do you think they were designed together and coming out at relatively the same time....it's like asking if the phenom will work on a 790FX board.

 

[goodie]

So, back to my original question,
is it worth waiting for Q9450 or just buy Q6600 & ASUS MF now?
(shame intel didnt make Q9450 9X multi, that would be one hell of a CPU!)

 

[cnumartyr]

So, back to my original question,
is it worth waiting for Q9450 or just buy Q6600 & ASUS MF now?
(shame intel didnt make Q9450 9X multi, that would be one hell of a CPU!)

Honestly I would just pick up a Q6600 and P5K-E now.. or wait til the Q9450 comes out and if they drop prices on the Q6600.

 

[goodie]

well of course the X48 will. Why do you think they were designed together and coming out at relatively the same time....it's like asking if the phenom will work on a 790FX board.

i wasnt asking if they will work together! i was asking if the X48 will hit 500FSB no problems

 

[cnumartyr]

i wasnt asking if they will work together! i was asking if the X48 will hit 500FSB no problems

To hit 500 MHz FSB on any of these I think it's going to take some adjustment of CPU PLL, CPU VTT, NB Voltage, as well as GTL Refs.

 

[goodie]

To hit 500 MHz FSB on any of these I think it's going to take some adjustment of CPU PLL, CPU VTT, NB Voltage, as well as GTL Refs.

thats what i thought! im not too clued up on "CPU PLL, CPU VTT, NB Voltage, GTL Refs"
so the thought of an idiot proof overclock to at least 3.2-3.4ghz sounds ideal to me
thanks for info

 

[goodie]

can anyone clarify,
whats the difference between a CPU that is 1333mhz FSB (Q9450)
& a CPU that can RUN 1333mhz no problem (Q6600)?

 

[jonisginger]

can anyone clarify,
whats the difference between a CPU that is 1333mhz FSB (Q9450)
& a CPU that can RUN 1333mhz no problem (Q6600)?

Ha!! Thats a good one! Got me thinkin for once

Ok...well logically that means that the Q9450 will be able (for example) to use DDR3 1333 at 1333mhz at its stock speed, while the Q6600 will have to be overclocked to use it at 1333 speed.

So..

I guess the new proc just has the FSB set higher.

Plussss the mobo has to be able to support FSB 1333, hence new chips (E6750 etc) will not work in old motherboards..

I think. Infact I am pretty sure.

Anyone else care to correct me?

Hope that answers part of all of your question anyway...

 

[cnumartyr]

The difference are in manufacturering. One is set to 1333 one is set to 1066. This is of course other than the fact that the 1333 Q9450 is a Penryn.

If Intel wanted to they could release a 1333 Mhz Kentsfield with no problems.

 

[jonisginger]

If they did that they would only work in nForce 680i/P35/X38 mobos...

 

[cnumartyr]

If they did that they would only work in nForce 680i/P35/X38 mobos...

What about the dual cores at 1333 FSB?

Edit: Don't get me wrong. Personally I wish my Q6600 had a 800 MHz FSB stock. A 12x Multiplier would be much more fun.

 

[jonisginger]

Haha, the dual cores at 1333mhz only run in those mobo's. Or so I am to believe. 1066 is max supported by anything other.

 

[cnumartyr]

Haha, the dual cores at 1333mhz only run in those mobo's. Or so I am to believe. 1066 is max supported by anything other.

My point being if they don't care about the dual cores running at 1333 why didn't they up the quad cores? All I'm really saying is the only difference between a 1066 and a 1333 MHz FSB (other than 65nm -> 45nm) is the stock FSB which matters very little in terms of performance.

 

[goodie]

My point being if they don't care about the dual cores running at 1333 why didn't they up the quad cores? All I'm really saying is the only difference between a 1066 and a 1333 MHz FSB (other than 65nm -> 45nm) is the stock FSB which matters very little in terms of performance.

thats the one, i thought that was the case

 

[jr88]

So with currently released Mobos supporting up to 1600 Mhz FSB, the new Penryns coming out in January can only be overclocked to a maximum of 3.2 GHZ? (1600 FSB / 4 cores = 400mhz, 400mhz * 8x multiplier = 3.2ghz).

I thought the 45nm technology was supposed to improve performance, why did Intel limit us with a 8x multiplier? Does the multiplier increase as new steppings are released or something, or is there a way to achieve higher than 3.2ghz overclocked that I don't know (I have never overclocked before ).

 

[goodie]

just raise the FSB higher than 400, how high you can go is another matter!

 

[jonisginger]

The news quads do run at 1333...

 

[jr88]

just raise the FSB higher than 400, how high you can go is another matter!

Well, on a motherboard like this one:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=26284&vpn=GA-P35-DS4&manufacture=Gigabyte
How high do you think I would be able to OC a Q9450?

Or on a X38, how high do you think I would be able to raise the FSB until I hit the 'FSB wall' I saw mentioned a few times above this post.