Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Is 3.2GHz Faster than 3.0GHz?
As you've undoubtedly seen by now, Intel still remains unchallenged in the high end processor market, especially when it comes to quad-core CPUs. AMD's Phenom will only ship at a maximum of 2.3GHz this year, and 3.0GHz won't happen until after the QX9770 launches next year in all likelihood.
With no real competition from AMD, the biggest challenge the QX9770 faces comes from Intel. The graph below should give you a quick idea of how obsolete the QX9770 will make the QX9650 (we used the same test configuration from our Phenom article for these numbers):
The performance gains are impressive, given that we're only looking at a 6.6% increase in clock speed. The 1600MHz FSB does seem to do a bit, giving us 7 - 8% performance boosts in a couple of instances.
Without knowing the price of the QX9770 it's tough to say whether or not you're getting what you pay for. Generally these Extreme parts aren't worth their asking prices, but if you're wondering where peak performance will be early next year, the QX9770 should give you a good indication.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
retrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I meant to say "Most reviews of the 3ghz/1333fsb model are clocking up to 4ghz on air -" including the one right here at Anandtech..."Our unlocked QX9650 had no problems hitting 333MHz x 12.0, for a final clock speed of 4.0GHz"
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
Whats the deal?
JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
12x333 is quite different from 8x400. That might be the problem.nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
but they have done 10 x 400 on the X48 testretrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
it shouldnt be that much hotter - people are running kentsfield at way higher than that on air - many approaching 500mhz bus. 400 is achievable on basic cheap motherboards with minimal cooling solutions and has been for over 1 year.semo - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
no one is stuck with that situation. you can't even pre-order this chip and it obviously not a retail part. also it wasn't netburst's "high power envelope" that was the problem, it was the actual high power draw of the prescott core that was the problem.JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
The chipset and mobo have to run at higher clocks as well. Maybe that's the problem?MrKaz - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
So going from 1333Mhz FSB to 1600Mhz FSB gives an increase in 58W at idle and 75W at full load...Then maybe it’s better not release 1600 FSB cpus at all