Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Updated: We're working with Intel on the source of the thermal problems we mentioned in this review, it looks like the culprit was our ASUS P5E3 Deluxe motherboard. ASUS has since released an updated BIOS intended to address the power consumption issues we faced, you can read more about it here while we continue with our testing.
Intel plays dirty.
The closer I got to receiving a Phenom from AMD, the more Intel started dropping hints that it would be sending me something new. One day a box arrived, inside it was this chip:
What you're looking at is an Intel CPU that won't be out until Q1 next year, it's the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. We received it within a matter of weeks of us publishing our last Core 2 Extreme review.
You have to understand Intel's motivation for this launch, because the old Intel would never have sent these chips out. The old Intel would've worried about cannibalizing current Core 2 Extreme sales by talking about a new processor this soon after a launch. The new Intel though, that's a different story.
Today is supposed to be AMD's Phenom launch, which it is, but it's just not a very strong one. AMD is still struggling with low clock speeds, and the release simply wasn't the bang you'd expect from the first real successor to the almighty K8. Rather than give AMD even a moment to regain composure, Intel attempted to disrupt the Phenom launch by sampling the QX9770.
Literally within days of AMD telling me when the Phenom NDA would lift, Intel told me the NDA date of the QX9770 previews - and what a coincidence that was.
To AMD's benefit, the QX9770 doesn't compete even remotely in the same price range as any of its Phenom processors we talked about today. To avoid hurting QX9650 sales, the QX9770 will actually carry a price tag greater than $1000 when it arrives in Q1 2008.
Like its cheaper sibling, the QX9770 is based on Intel's new 45nm Penryn core. The quad-core chip is virtually identical to the QX9650 we reviewed last month with two major exceptions: it runs at 3.2GHz and it uses a 1600MHz FSB.
The 3.2GHz speed bump is nothing earth shattering, it's a 6.7% increase in clock speed over the QX9650, but the 1600MHz FSB on the other hand is a big deal. The FSB frequency increase itself isn't even the important part, what's key here is that Intel doesn't have any chipsets out officially with 1600MHz FSB support, yet it's sampling QX9770s to reviewers.
The old Intel would've waited for the X48 chipset, which will bring official 1600MHz FSB support. The old Intel wouldn't have even recognized the QX9770 as existing on its roadmap. The new Intel not only pre-announced the chip, but it also encouraged reviewers to overclock X38 chipsets to support the 1600MHz FSB required by the QX9770.
Our QX9770 testbed, an overclocked X38 motherboard
If I'm working at AMD today I'm not worried about the specs of the QX9770, I'm worried that Intel sent these things out for review.
We've already looked at what Penryn can offer in our QX9650 review and our Wolfdale Preview. If you want to understand the architecture behind Intel's new 45nm chips be sure to read some of our earlier articles.
27 Comments
View All Comments
cVEcOC - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
hello for Overclocking this new cpu i can up to 4.5ghz like to QX9650 at 1600FSB?nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
I really don't understand. You've check X48 chipset:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
with a Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650
You have had to problem to run the cpu at 4GHz 400MHz x 10
And now you say that a cpu at 400MHz x 8 is not stable? And you assume extra power is due to the cpu...
Have you try to measure the power of the cpu? (like there for example:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-... not the QX9770 yet on this site)
Or at least could you slower the multiplier keeping 400 FSB and doing the inverse droping fsb increasing the multiplier, in order to have the same cpu frequency but a differnt fsb on board to see if it's really related to the cpu?
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
qx9650http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/intel-qx965...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/521/...45nm-12-...
CPU power measure
idle: 12W
full: 63.6W
so a change of 52.6W
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...">http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ...
power measure behind the psu, with "small system"
idle:82W
full:135W
so a change of 53W
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15">http://techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15
idle: 160W
full: 215W
so a change of 55W
But in your mesurement
idle:151W
full:192
a change of only 41W!
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....power load of QX6770 below QX6700 and QX6850
On this one same kind of result than you
http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...">http://techgage.com/print/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9...
look like there is some differencies between the ES
nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
or motherboards...[quote]
Updated: We're working with Intel on the source of the thermal problems we mentioned in this review, it looks like the culprit was our ASUS P5E3 Deluxe motherboard. ASUS has since released an updated BIOS intended to address the power consumption issues we faced, you can read more about it here while we continue with our testing.
[/quote]
magreen - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Was Anand being facetious with this conclusion? A 6.6% increase in clockspeed gives a 7-8% increase in performance? That means the 1600MHz FSB did almost nothing to improve performance! We're talking a gain of 1% due to the FSB increase? Not to mention that 1% is probably within the margin of error for those benchmarks! What gives?
Toferman - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Guys,The CPUZ screenshot shows too much Voltage for stock speed. Change it to Default, and your temps shouldn't be so high.
:)
Tofer
gochichi - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
It seems like that kind of FSB to start off with is not worth it. It seems to me that Intel is actually trying to curtail the vast overclockability of it's lineup in the future.I imagine they would love to reestablish some reason to spend $600+ on a CPU. Seems like starting at a low factory FSB makes overclocking too easy.
I feel more and more so every passing day that I made a big mistake by not getting a Q6600 when they came out. If the word on the street is right, you can get those up to a steady 3.0Ghz for under three bills. That performance at that price is going to be hard to beat even by Intel it looks like.
supremelaw - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...">http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/heatsinks/warnin...Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/">http://www.supremelaw.org/
Etern205 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
You must study law, well then good for you.Just don't abuse it!