# first review of Intel 45nm New Stepping Q9550 C1



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2812056


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

trt740 said:


> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2812056



here is another small one http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3557-view-Core-2-Quad-q9550-new-stepping-overclocking.html


----------



## Homeless (Mar 17, 2008)

450fsb wall


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

damn... a quad running 3.8ghz @ 1.31v.... nice. too bad it's hit the wall.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

Homeless said:


> 450fsb wall



yes prime stable appears to be 450FSB benching 480FSB, WTF intel said they were going to fix that, thats the same as the Qx9650 they didn't fix anything according to that. Hopefully he got a bad batch if not that chips really not worth it.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

lies, dirty lies.  

sit back and watch the q6700 rise to new fame.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> lies, dirty lies.



Fuxking intel if this is a accurate indication of the Q9550 c1 stepping intel is a bunch of AHH$%^&**( and they lied. They only held their chips back because they wanted to sell all the prior chips. Fix the FSB my azz. I  hope this is just a bad chip or intel has made a buch of preordering people pissed. This would mean the Q9450 will do max 3.6ghz to 3.7ghz making it a total waste. The Q6600 will be a better buy or for sure a X3210 they will do that speed and cost 230.00.


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 17, 2008)

Really nice performance of that chips with that TINY TINY voltage, it's almost nanovoltage  Also really good temps after 3 hours of Orthos if the cooling it's just air


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

SirKeldon said:


> Really nice performance of that chips with that TINY TINY voltage, it's almost nanovoltage
> 
> Also really good temps after 3 hours of Orthos if the cooling it's just air, congratulations for the future owners of this pretty beast



at 550.00 to 600.00 you think thats good? really?  not trying to be mean but did I miss something


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

it sounds like another mediocre piece of expensive crap to me. not worth more than $180 of my hard earned dollars if you ask me.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> it sounds like another mediocre piece of expensive crap to me. not worth more than $180 of my hard earned dollars if you ask me.



I think may be 280.00 to 300.00 max just a little over what a Q6600 but not 580.00 to 600.00+ You would get 200 more Mghz a core and 5 to 10 percent increase for the extra on chip memory. plus with a 8.5 multiplier you won't be able to max DDR2 1200 you need even multiplers


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 17, 2008)

trt740 said:


> at 550.00 to 600.00 you think thats good? really?  not trying to be mean but did I miss something



Doh, that high price?? Didn't thought it!!! gonna edit it


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

*this site is usually very cheap*



SirKeldon said:


> Doh, that high price?? Didn't thought it!!! gonna edit it





http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/s.cgi but even they have the price jacked up


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

SirKeldon said:


> Doh, that high price?? Didn't thought it!!! gonna edit it


http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-PENRYN-Q95...ryZ14293QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
check out these price jacking bastards

and this retail online store http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/product.asp?pid=19652&sid=1G7A38G6MM169JT9R55S9957FKSTFEG5


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 17, 2008)

Lucky we still have the Moore's law between us


----------



## trog100 (Mar 17, 2008)

i see its not getting good reviews.. he he he..

trog


----------



## imperialreign (Mar 17, 2008)

lord . . . I wish AMD would release another Intel ass-kicker already.  Is it just me, or is the Core2 CPU family starting to turn into another Pentium4 extravaganza re-visited.

Until AMD churns out something to smack Intel again, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of "below expectation" CPU's designed around the C2 architecture.  When Intel is in the lead, they're not known for innovations.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

I love my Q6600


----------



## X800 (Mar 17, 2008)

So i if this is the case with theese 45nm quads i might cancel my order (Q9450) and go an 65nm cpu.Do you think X38 Intel based board clock theese higher? or fsb the same on theese boards.


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 17, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> Is it just me, or is the Core2 CPU family starting to turn into another Pentium4 extravaganza re-visited.



I completely agree.


----------



## rampage (Mar 17, 2008)

i caught onto this 450fsb wall a while back, and thats why i replaced my dead q6600 with another q6600 ..  could it be that the wall is there for some sort of reason/ they dont see the point in fixing it, when you think of it the OCing market isnt there major seller (your average being mum & dad's/ bussiness/ dell/ HP/ ect being the main market)

dont these chips (45nm) start to die very quickly and higher volts 1.3/1.4 (cant rember wich one), i guees i am thinking if they die with higher volts hence why would they bother with fixing a fsb wall and having a shit load of chips returned to them becuase they have been burnt out

it seams to me these chips are great at what they do, there just not big OCers, hell you cant expect a 50% OC on every cpu released, come to think of it could this be part parcle why the newer cpu's have lower multies and higher fsb, just because they couldnt handle the sheer MHZ that the market wants..

END RANT


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

rampage said:


> i caught onto this 450fsb wall a while back, and thats why i replaced my dead q6600 with another q6600 ..  could it be that the wall is there for some sort of reason/ they dont see the point in fixing it, when you think of it the OCing market isnt there major seller (your average being mum & dad's/ bussiness/ dell/ HP/ ect being the main market)
> 
> dont these chips (45nm) start to die very quickly and higher volts 1.3/1.4 (cant rember wich one), i guees i am thinking if they die with higher volts hence why would they bother with fixing a fsb wall and having a shit load of chips returned to them becuase they have been burnt out
> 
> ...



you couldn't be any more wrong. (sorry for the anger.)

Overclocking and Enthusiast is a HUGE part of the market. 

i have only heard of a handful of Core 2 chip EVER dying, EVER. it's ery rare and requires human error or lightning damage to kill one, or not enough cooling.

people like K|NGP|N and Fugger have pushed the 45nm chips to 1.9v and they have shown NO signs of aging. 

the FSB problem is dumb and intel needs to fix it ASAP or the 45nm chips will be a failure on their part.


----------



## Azazel (Mar 17, 2008)

price is too high, and add another $100 to that...for the uk price...


----------



## rampage (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> you couldn't be any more wrong. (sorry for the anger.)
> 
> Overclocking and Enthusiast is a HUGE part of the market.
> 
> ...





thats cool, no offence taken, ive only gone buy the little i have seen around the place, i understand the overclocking and enthusiast market is a very big driving force in the market but what i was trying to say as the % of sales i would think would go the the areas i listed before the dells,HP's general computing....    hay i could be wrong again.... if so please feel free to kick me while i am still down (avoid the balls & face plz)


----------



## btarunr (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> sit back and watch the q6700 rise to new fame.



Can't say really, while it does OC well, the 12 MB caches, 45nm fab process and SSE4 act as strong USPs for the Q9550. It's just about a higher locked multipler for the Q6700.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 17, 2008)

i have always seen 450 fsb as a reasonable expectation point.. but u can only drive a particular horse so fast before it trips over.. with intel we are there.. having no real use for a quad chip i expect my current E8400 at 4 gig 24/7 to be it for quite some time..

satisfying the "enthusiasts" desire for a new toy to play with very 6 weeks is somewhat impossible.. the clocking scene has dormant periods.. we are now entering one..

time to find some other form of amusement.. 

trog

ps.. u are seeing the downside of quad.. it wont go as fast as dual unless it costs a fortune.. multipliers cost money.. quad multipliers way more than dual..


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

Ignore the truth.. follow the herd.. you will make more friends that way and life will be easier..

Ive always liked that trog


----------



## Morgoth (Mar 17, 2008)

whats with this low voltage stuff? cant the turn it up to 1,5volt?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

rampage said:


> thats cool, no offence taken, ive only gone buy the little i have seen around the place, i understand the overclocking and enthusiast market is a very big driving force in the market but what i was trying to say as the % of sales i would think would go the the areas i listed before the dells,HP's general computing....    hay i could be wrong again.... if so please feel free to kick me while i am still down (avoid the balls & face plz)



the comment was not directly towards you man. i feel that a lot of people have similar thoughts that you have. i just wanted to clarify the facts for everyone. sorry if you feel that i was insulting you directly. 

everyone needs to read this....

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus...-good-investment-yet.html?highlight=yorkfield

(most)everything in that thread is true. the reviews that have started popping up around the net have just begun to confirm that the 45nm are not worth the price.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

I was the first one to post that review fitseries3 hoping that anyone considering a 45nm cpu would read it. Especially them with a Q6600.


----------



## rampage (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> the comment was not directly towards you man. i feel that a lot of people have similar thoughts that you have. i just wanted to clarify the facts for everyone. sorry if you feel that i was insulting you directly.
> 
> everyone needs to read this....
> 
> ...



as i said all is good, i know it (EDIT wasnt) directed at me, dam i couldnt give a shit if it was..lol... i agree 110 % with the link u posted..  people know the general rule of thumb with OCing and need to rember it before getting carried away  .. a lower multi means a lower max OC .. rember kiddies i said a general rule of thumb..

END RANT


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> I was the first one to post that review fitseries3 hoping that anyone considering a 45nm cpu would read it. Especially them with a Q6600.



thanks... it seams that people need to be reminded every day.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> thanks... it seams that people need to be reminded every day.



Yep some of us saw this coming its jst not worth the cost as you said.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 17, 2008)

I'll wait for a revision that can do 500MHz FSB stable.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 17, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> I'll wait for a revision that can do 500MHz FSB stable.



u will wait a long time.. 

the next revision will be worse.. set up for 1600 fsb boards and will come with an even lower multiplier.. people who think that intels aim is to make cheap chips that will run at the same speed as their expensive one have lost the plot entirely..

wise up dudes.. intel dont like u overclocking cheap chips.. they would far sooner u pay for extra speed..

its the mobo makers we can thank for high fsb overclocks.. not intel.. the whole idea of locked upwards multipliers was to stop overclocking.. the mobo makers kinda made it partially redundant..   

trog


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2008)

trt740 said:


> http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-PENRYN-Q95...ryZ14293QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> check out these price jacking bastards
> 
> and this retail online store http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/product.asp?pid=19652&sid=1G7A38G6MM169JT9R55S9957FKSTFEG5





> NOTE FOR OVERCLOCKERS:
> yorkfield processors with extreme cooling were capable to overclock up to frequencies  5.6 GHz, and  this was not the limit.  Actually, new records in 3DMark tests where already established.



 like they will hit that on a 9550 not with todays mobos


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

Yep its got to the point were they need to do some thinking and redesigning instead of just putting more cores into a cpu its about time they broke the 4ghz mark at stock so we can see some 6ghz and 7ghz overclocks then maybe crossfire and sli wont be bottlenecked a higher stable pci-e fsb would be nice also.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 17, 2008)

why do they have to break the 4 gig mark at stock.. at 3 gig they already piss all over the competition.. 

this is about making money.. thinking and redesigning costs money.. they dont do any more of that than they have to.. with the demise of amd they no longer have to do much thinking or redesigning..

its in their interest to to slowly trickle out littles bits of performance (they have to keep selling more chips) but trickle is the key word..

people are daft enough to pay a couple of hundred dollars or more for what us lot do at the click of button..

in truth we dont overclock chips.. intel sell us underclocked chips.. we just make em go as fast as they will really go..

we simply use up intels spare performance buffer and leap ahead in time..

the spare performance buffer is only there cos amd have fouled up..  when a flagship chip can be overclocked by 50%.. the market is rigged.. its in our favour thow.. not joe publics.. they have to live with underclocked chips.. we dont.. 

trog


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 17, 2008)

trog100 said:


> why do they have to break the 4 gig mark at stock.. at 3 gig they already piss all over the competition..
> trog



love the comments TROG. so true... all of it. it seems though the low end e2xxx chips can do 100% OC's but the high end qx9650 can do 50% at best.... on air/water of course.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

I was refering to both sides trog amd and intel.
Getting to 3ghz and 4ghz has been possible for a while now.
If they focused on a chip that ran 4ghz stock that would be sweet.

Look what happend when intel did do some thinking and redesigning they beat the pants off amd like you said.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 17, 2008)

None of you can say you wouldnt consider buying one if they suddenly fetch out a new family of chips the lowest been 4ghz stock and could oc to 6ghz because we do it all the time single core to dual core to quad from amd to intel etc its how its always been overclockers like to overclock and love max preformance.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 18, 2008)

Nitro-Max said:


> None of you can say you wouldnt consider buying one if they suddenly fetch out a new family of chips the lowest been 4ghz stock and could oc to 6ghz because we do it all the time single core to dual core to quad from amd to intel etc its how its always been overclockers like to overclock and love max preformance.



yes.. but how fast is fast.. how slow is slow.. he he..

for me its easy.. 4 gig is now fast.. i.. cos i aint a real "enthusiast" can settle back and be happy in the knowledge i have a "fast" chip.. 

why cos i know thats it for while.. what would make me unhappy.. a new f-cking five gig chip .. i would feel obliged to buy one..  

u on the other hand will never be happy.. cos u cant wait for the next fastest chip.. u are a true "enthusiast".. me i just like to know i have got the better of the marketing giants who would really like me to pay over a grand for the performance i have.. or wait eighteen months for it.. he he

fast is only fast till something faster comes long.. its all relative.. 

trog


----------



## Kursah (Mar 18, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i have always seen 450 fsb as a reasonable expectation point.. but u can only drive a particular horse so fast before it trips over.. with intel we are there.. having no real use for a quad chip i expect my current E8400 at 4 gig 24/7 to be it for quite some time..
> 
> satisfying the "enthusiasts" desire for a new toy to play with very 6 weeks is somewhat impossible.. the clocking scene has dormant periods.. we are now entering one..
> 
> ...



I'm happy with my 500FSB 6300 @ 3.5...I may get an 8400 eventually on trade or FS thread, but I totally agree with your statements there. Quad cores aren't needed by most, and with current results it was about time intel hit a somewhat dormant period.

While dissapointing, we all know it's not even close to the end for Intel or highly oc-able chips...there's always something to look forward to in the next 1-3 months in this inudstry for those that like to play keep up.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 18, 2008)

I bought mt Qx9650 to sell because I bought it at a 40 percent discount but cannot bring my self to sell it there is a big difference between it and other chips I've owned and my E8400  and E6850 were great chips but this thing screams  and it should becaue it is pricey. I was ,however, thinking of getting a Q9450 of E8500 but I just cannot sell this beast. If you can avoid it don't buy a QX9650 they are like crack.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 19, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I bought mt Qx9650 to sell because I bought it at a 40 percent discount but cannot bring my self to sell it there is a big difference between it and other chips I've owned and my E8400  and E6850 were great chips but this thing screams  and it should becaue it is pricey. I was ,however, thinking of getting a Q9450 of E8500 but I just cannot sell this beast. If you can avoid it don't buy a QX9650 they are like crack.



when u arrive at the top there aint nowhere else to go.. 

trog


----------



## AsRock (Mar 19, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Fuxking intel if this is a accurate indication of the Q9550 c1 stepping intel is a bunch of AHH$%^&**( and they lied. They only held their chips back because they wanted to sell all the prior chips. Fix the FSB my azz. I  hope this is just a bad chip or intel has made a buch of preordering people pissed. This would mean the Q9450 will do max 3.6ghz to 3.7ghz making it a total waste. The Q6600 will be a better buy or for sure a X3210 they will do that speed and cost 230.00.



Maybe they had more issue's with 45nm than holding them back.


----------



## boasey (Dec 8, 2008)

*No OC*

So theres a lot of ragging on the q9550 in the OC department, but what if I didnt want to OC? Is the 9550 worth the extra over the q6600? Ive read lots of great reviews on the 6600 but would rather get the 9550 if its a better performer and if it will last langer agains superceding.

n.b. I don't want to overclock cause im too lazy and cant afford to fuck a cpu


----------

