Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

QX9650 : 400fsb x 10 = 4 Ghz on air?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 25, 2008 3:19:40 PM

I'm still hesitating to get the QX9650 ... is it worth it for a new OC'er?
Do you think it would do a 400fsb x 10 multiplier = 4 Ghz on air?
I was thinking about the Zalman 9700 since it has thermal paste etc included and it seems to fit most MB&cases.
Probably I'll get the 790i and since it has data corruption with high fsb I was thinking about this option.
Any advice would be great, I'd like to keep the main system for a few years, and only upgrade the gfx.

More about : qx9650 400fsb ghz air

April 25, 2008 3:37:29 PM

advise? the 9700 sucks...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 25, 2008 3:58:02 PM

The Q6700 also has a 10x multiplier and it's much cheaper.
April 25, 2008 3:59:24 PM

wow that xigmatek @ $37 from newegg is one heck of a good deal!
April 25, 2008 4:00:45 PM

I may be wrong, but I didn't think the Q9450 had a 10x multiplier?
April 25, 2008 4:01:42 PM

Great list, ok... the Zalman 9700 seems the best I can find at my e-tail site.
Since it is 5th in ranking and after reading some reviews it seems good.
So why is it bad ?
Should I order my cooler elsewhere and pay more for delivery?
I also want a rather common cooler to avoid problems that it would not fit.
April 25, 2008 4:07:25 PM

OK, a little advice from a QX9650 owner. You can check my computer configuration for details. A 400FSB with a 10 multiplier will theoretically get 4 ghz, but that probably won't happen unless you do something exotic. My highest stable clock so far has been 3825 mhz using a 425FSB and a 9 multiplier. I know it can be raised, but that will take more experimentation. The Zalman 9700 is a good heatsink, but its not up to the job for higher overclocks. I'd expect a max overclock of around 3.6 ghz with the Zalman 9700. Check Anandtech's various heatsink tests for specifics on which heatsinks and fans do the best job. Don't get too concerned with super high clocks. They are good for speed runs and benches, but for everyday use, they have no value. AMD was right years ago when they said their chips did more work per cycle and therefore could do more than Intel's faster chips. A QX9650 can do more work at 3.6 ghz than a lessor chip which is clocked faster, and the QX9650 will produce less heat and use less energy doing it. In computers, we are leaving the days behind where overclocking showed big gains in doing everyday tasks and in gaming.

As far as the 790i, it has a mixed reputation from what I've read. As I also built with the idea of keeping my build for about 5 years or so, I invested in good hardware. It cost a bit more now, but the average cost is cheaper over a 5 year run. A main consideration of the different motherboards is whether you plan on SLI or Crossfire. I bought a X48 and choose the Crossfire option. Others will prefer SLI, so they choose Nvidia as its the only chipset that will run SLI. You make your choices and live with them.

As to picking a mobo that uses DDR3, I went for one that uses DDR2. In a couple years, DDR3 might show a good advantage, but for now, its very high priced for the little that it gives. The fact is, it may never show a marked advantage. Some people have thought that it will take DDR4 before we see another great increase over DDR2. I don't know about that, as I'm not an engineer, but I can observe the present situation and DDR2 is best for now and the near future. Get 8 gig of ram while you're at it, as programs will probably be using 8 gig within a few years.

Just a few words from a QX9650 owner.
April 25, 2008 4:10:03 PM

sciggy said:
I may be wrong, but I didn't think the Q9450 had a 10x multiplier?


The Q9450 has a 8x multiplier.
April 25, 2008 4:18:27 PM

The Q9450 has a 8x multiplier so 425x8=3.4Ghz seems safe.

Maybe the QX9650 it's not worth it, would this 0.6Ghz be worth 500$ on a good gaming rig?
April 25, 2008 5:08:54 PM

My friend owned a zalman 9700... To be quite frank... its too expensive for the performance and the included fan is LOUD even at ~7v, and its a pain in the ass to replace, plus doing that obviously voids the warrenty. Your much better off getting a HS that allows you to pick your own fans
April 25, 2008 5:11:40 PM

Thanks for all the info sailor... I guess I'll get a 9450 or 9550 in that case.
As for memory, I'd be happy with 1:1 DDR2 if I'd go with crossfireX.
I could get 2 HD 4870's next month but the X2's will only launch later.
Now I can't play Crysis but I already bought one you see ;-) for a 24".
If I go 790i with 2 EVGA 9800gtx , I could use there step-up program in juli and get the 9900 series (hopefully with the G200). I don't want the 780i.

It would be great if there are ATI cards with a step up program, anyone?
Then I'd get a X48 without hesitation and could probably OC better since the Nvidia boards have problems with corrupt data in OC.

Hard choices... ;-)
April 25, 2008 5:35:37 PM

I dont have a Q9450 but I can tell you that going from 3.6ghz - 4.0ghz gave me no additional FPS on Crysis.I was so suprised,confused and a little upset that my upgrade from an E6550 OC'd 3.33 to a E8400 did not help the game much.
April 25, 2008 5:44:28 PM

Quote:
OK, a little advice from a QX9650 owner. You can check my computer configuration for details. A 400FSB with a 10 multiplier will theoretically get 4 ghz, but that probably won't happen unless you do something exotic. My highest stable clock so far has been 3825 mhz using a 425FSB and a 9 multiplier. I know it can be raised, but that will take more experimentation. The Zalman 9700 is a good heatsink, but its not up to the job for higher overclocks. I'd expect a max overclock of around 3.6 ghz with the Zalman 9700. Check Anandtech's various heatsink tests for specifics on which heatsinks and fans do the best job. Don't get too concerned with super high clocks. They are good for speed runs and benches, but for everyday use, they have no value. AMD was right years ago when they said their chips did more work per cycle and therefore could do more than Intel's faster chips. A QX9650 can do more work at 3.6 ghz than a lessor chip which is clocked faster, and the QX9650 will produce less heat and use less energy doing it. In computers, we are leaving the days behind where overclocking showed big gains in doing everyday tasks and in gaming.

As far as the 790i, it has a mixed reputation from what I've read. As I also built with the idea of keeping my build for about 5 years or so, I invested in good hardware. It cost a bit more now, but the average cost is cheaper over a 5 year run. A main consideration of the different motherboards is whether you plan on SLI or Crossfire. I bought a X48 and choose the Crossfire option. Others will prefer SLI, so they choose Nvidia as its the only chipset that will run SLI. You make your choices and live with them.

As to picking a mobo that uses DDR3, I went for one that uses DDR2. In a couple years, DDR3 might show a good advantage, but for now, its very high priced for the little that it gives. The fact is, it may never show a marked advantage. Some people have thought that it will take DDR4 before we see another great increase over DDR2. I don't know about that, as I'm not an engineer, but I can observe the present situation and DDR2 is best for now and the near future. Get 8 gig of ram while you're at it, as programs will probably be using 8 gig within a few years.

Just a few words from a QX9650 owner.


Excellent post Sailer.
April 25, 2008 6:11:30 PM

My QX9650, 12x333Mhz @ 1.35v Load Line calibration enabled, Maximus Extreme mobo and Thermalright Ultra 120. 100% stable. Temps < 48C under load. Best computer i have ever had. The processor will do 4.2, but i have to push the Voltage out of my comfort zone and temps start to push up toward 52+.

*edit*
I just wanted to add that i had less luck raising the fsb to get more Mhz out of this chip. Above 375Mhz fsb it started to become less stable then at the same speed with fsb lowered. For example. 10X400Mhz my cpu will not do, however, 12x333Mhz is perfect. Should give it a shot Sailer and see if your chip will do a little more.
April 25, 2008 6:17:16 PM

That sounds very good FHDelux, never tought about that high multiplier. I thought the combination of both would be better. Great temps, thx for the input.
This makes the QX9650 sound very good again... :-)
April 25, 2008 6:48:20 PM

tjoepie said:
The Q9450 has a 8x multiplier so 425x8=3.4Ghz seems safe.

Maybe the QX9650 it's not worth it, would this 0.6Ghz be worth 500$ on a good gaming rig?


That's a judgment call. Part of the reason I bought the QX9650 was that with an unlocked multiplier, I have a lot more room for experimenting with different speeds. Also, the Q9450 and Q9550 weren't out yet (bad Intel). I really wanted a Q9650 and its 9x multiplier, but Intel doesn't plan on releasing that until fall or winter of 2008. If you get a fixed multiplier chip, I'd recommend the Q9550 at the moment, along with a good mobo that takes full advantage of the half multiplier, as it has a 8.5 multi. By the way, I'm looking forward to the ATI 4870 cards.

@FHDelux- I have tried a few runs at high overclocks, getting 4+ghz, the highest being a 10x425 setting. The computer seemed stable enough, but under load, the heat climbed past 50c and at 55c I shut down. There seems to be a FSB zone of 360 to 390 where I get overclock failures. I can use a FSB of 400-450 without problem, but not the 360-390. One of the Anandtech articles discussed this "dead zone" a bit and implied that it was common among all mobos, just setting in at different speeds. Yesterday I ran Prime95 for 8 hours at a 3780 clock and only got up to 48c. At the moment, 3700-3800 seems to be the sweet spot area for my computer; having a good combo of speed, temperature, and stability. Further experimentation might raise it more. I might need higher clocked ram as well, don't know for sure. I may try more on a future day when I'm not busy.
April 25, 2008 8:03:37 PM

ivanski said:
I dont have a Q9450 but I can tell you that going from 3.6ghz - 4.0ghz gave me no additional FPS on Crysis.I was so suprised,confused and a little upset that my upgrade from an E6550 OC'd 3.33 to a E8400 did not help the game much.



Crysis doesnt' scale well with anything. Blame that on the game's maker not Intel and other PC vendors.



For anyone else considerig quads the Q6700 (after this price drop) and the Q6600 are the best choices for overclocking unless you spend $500+ on the Q9550 or $1000+ on the QX9650.........
April 25, 2008 8:12:58 PM

I forgot to add.

To the OP. Just buy the Q6700 as it has a 10x multiplier and is more than enough for your needs. When you pair it with an X38/X48 board you should have no problems running it with a 400FSB, which means you can CHOOSE if you are comfortable with the voltage it takes for 4GHZ (or back it down to 9x for 3.6GHZ).

With a Q6700 you also are buying a sub $300 chip so if you scew up and fry it (you said it's your first OC) then you won't be out a grand.

For anyone who says the 45nm are "so superior", do the research yourself and look at the hard data. The new chips are 6% faster clock for clock (excluding cashe memory differences) than the old 65nm chips. They certainly aren't worth the price difference unless you run them 24/7 and count the power savings.
April 25, 2008 8:20:28 PM

Nothing wrong with a 9700 really. Ive been running one for other a year on a 6300 Conroe @ 3.4 ghz. It isnt that quiet, Ill admit that and it was a pain in the a__ to install, but it does work. Just make sure you point the fans airflow toward the rear of the case. If you want quiet a one of the other heatsinks on the top 5 at Frosty may serve you better.
a c 478 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 26, 2008 4:28:39 AM

ivanski said:
I dont have a Q9450 but I can tell you that going from 3.6ghz - 4.0ghz gave me no additional FPS on Crysis.I was so suprised,confused and a little upset that my upgrade from an E6550 OC'd 3.33 to a E8400 did not help the game much.



Umm...

I guess you don't do research since many FPS games are more limited by the GPU(s) rather than the CPU. Crysis is one such game. Additionally, Crysis does not seem to scale very well with current generation video cards. Put the game back on the shelf and wait a year to buy a new video card to play the game.

It's not Intel's (AMD/ATI too) or nVidia's fault that they cannot handle Crysis. Crysis' design is simply too advanced (or flawed depending on your point of view) to be played in all it's glory with current day technologies.
April 26, 2008 9:27:08 AM

Yes Jaguar you are right,I just thought he might be thinking the same way I did since he wrote this:

tjoepie said:
The Q9450 has a 8x multiplier so 425x8=3.4Ghz seems safe.

Maybe the QX9650 it's not worth it, would this 0.6Ghz be worth 500$ on a good gaming rig?

April 27, 2008 10:53:46 PM

Crysis and the future far cry2 are games I want to play but all things considered I'll go for the Q9450 and OC with a good X48.
Maybe the new 4870 will handle crysis better.
I decided on buying a bit more mainstream and upgrade more often.
At the end of next year even the mainstream nahalem can probably beat the QX9770 since technology is changing so fast.
As long as I can play every game with 40fps on a 24" I'm happy.
From the reviews I read I suppose the Q9450 OC and 2 new 4870 will probably handle crysis well enough. I know there are no reviews yet of the 4870 but from the specs most seem to believe they will beat the 9800gtx's.
I'll wait for the release of the ATI4870 cards next month and buy two of those with an X48 and DDR2. I'll then get a Velociraptor from the savings in going DDR2 since I feel the HD is often a bottleneck and DDR3 only give a few % increase in performance according to tom's. Then in about 2 years a nahalem and DDR3 or whatever has the best price/perfo then.

Anyway thanks for all the help guys, I appreciate it!
July 20, 2008 2:54:08 AM

tjoepie said:
I'm still hesitating to get the QX9650 ... is it worth it for a new OC'er?
Do you think it would do a 400fsb x 10 multiplier = 4 Ghz on air?
I was thinking about the Zalman 9700 since it has thermal paste etc included and it seems to fit most MB&cases.
Probably I'll get the 790i and since it has data corruption with high fsb I was thinking about this option.
Any advice would be great, I'd like to keep the main system for a few years, and only upgrade the gfx.


Get a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (TRUE). That xigmatek heatsink isn't too bad either for a budget. For air cooling, those two are about the best, and if you are even considering a QX. then you want the best (and HS's are cheap).

I would wait for the price drop (monthish waiting) and the Q9550 will take the Q9450's price point. For a noob oc, just take it up to 400x8.5 and use that. 3.4GHz is PLENTY. You will not notice much of a difference after 3.6GHz and unless you just wanted bragging rights, I wouldn't waste time with 4.0+GHz. Especilly for a noob.

I have an E8400 and I just stuck it on 400x9. It works fine, no need to waste money on cooling and power for 4.0GHz.
December 13, 2008 3:49:08 PM

I am running 4050 Fully Stable on a Ultra 120 Black. I can get you the specifics of what I am doing voltage etc.. I have run 4 seperate instances of Orthos and PRIME 95 4 core at the same time. Not a single hiccup on air and never over 60c. Case and CPU fans turned down to 20% to let heat up. Done on an EVGA 790i ftw digital.

qx9650
8gb Patriot Low Lat. Viper Series DDR3 (Stock 7-7-7-20 1600)
3 1tb Seagate Cuda's
2 300gb Velociraptors Raid 0
3 GTX 280 OC BFG cards.

Crushing CRYSIS all on HIGHEST SETTINGS and 16Q AA.

Ford94Cobra@hotmail.com
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2008 12:16:57 AM

Even with that setup, there's no way you're pulling 16xQ AA on the highest settings unless your resolution is fairly low.
December 14, 2008 8:06:57 AM

High or Very High? On High that's nothing to brag about... Very high though? I doubt it. 1680x1050? probably.. all depends on res. show us a screenie of crysis benchmark :D 
December 14, 2008 12:29:34 PM

why people never look at the dates of the threads they're answering? this thread started back in april!
a b K Overclocking
December 14, 2008 5:56:08 PM

all good information apart from one comment sailer made,

Quote:
A QX9650 can do more work at 3.6 ghz than a lessor chip which is clocked faster, and the QX9650 will produce less heat and use less energy doing it


any cpu thats in the q9xxx range will perform the same if they have the same fsb and multi, the only advantage of the qx series is if you are useing extreme cooling for benchmarking etc. a q9550 at 4ghz with a 470fsb will actually be faster then the qx9650 at 10x400 bacsuse of the higher memory bandwidth.

oh and the qx9650 has a tdp of 130w which makes it harder to reach 4ghz on air than the q9650 which is only 95w.

so if your on a budjet then a qx series processor should never be on the list because of the £500 pound saved can be spent on a better mobo and more ram.
!