FreedomEclipseawesome - just in time for my trip to Hong Kong next week!!!!!!

Well if you can get me a Q9550 for £300 or less then get me one as well......cash or paypal no problem :toast:

well screw my camera, its about time these came out

were can i buy this?

I just bit the bullet, and ordered my QX9650 last night from the egg. These new 9 series quads just don't have any multis I can work with.

I hope you didn't pay too much. :eek:

erockerI hope you didn't pay too much. :eek:

$1k :o But it was tax money, so it was basically free. lol.

you can get them from intel direct for $875. i just cant see spending that much. i REALLY wanted the clubIT $299 q6700. if anyone got one..... i'll buy it!!

fitseries3you can get them from intel direct for $875. i just cant see spending that much. i REALLY wanted the clubIT $299 q6700. if anyone got one..... i'll buy it!!

Where can you get it directly from Intel? The only thing I saw them do was list other retailers to buy them from.

i have a resellers license. i dont order direct alot though. they want you to order a minimum of 10.... i dont have $8000 to spare... nor do i have 9 other buyers.

lol. Well then 875 doesn't really apply to me anyway.

@ fitseries3

are you getting any q9450's?

fitseries3the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.



i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.

Where has this been "proven"? The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem. The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling. 478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't. AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.

mandeloreabout time. If they have sorted the bus issues then everyone is in for some nice high clocking!!

If it were not for my unlocked multiplier on 9650, its have issues coz im struggling to hit 440fsb on this thing (tho its a known issue for the QX9650)

tho peeps who manage 450x9 should expect 4ghz stable on a pleasent 1.35-1.38 volts :) at 4ghz i know mine is stable @ 1.38

id suggest a bios update if any, cause the same happened with the Blitz Extreme.

65nm chips dont max out at 478. i have seen a TON of 65nm quads break into the low to mid 5XXmhz range. it's not entirely easy but it can be done with most newer boards. i have seen several reviews that show both the q9450 and q9550 hitting a firm wall at 478mhz FSB. i've also seen that the 45nm cores are only 3-5% better clock for clock. sure it uses less voltage but that also means that you cant(or shouldn't) use as much voltage as say, a q6600 would need to get into the 4ghz range. and another thing.... on my maximus formula my q6600 can run 3.5ghz stable with everything at stock voltages. i have seen a lot of other people who can run3.6ghz on all stock voltage. all im saying is if you already have a q6600 you'd be wasting your money to buy a 45nm quad.

these prices are going to destroy amd :(

JamesMichaelsWhere has this been "proven"? The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem. The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling. 478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't. AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.

3.8 isn't enough for some people. I'd take the higher multi of the Q6600 any day, and throw more volts at it, and have it run hotter. Who cares, as long as you keep the temps acceptable.

Unless somebody releases a board that can reliably do well over 525 fsb with the 45nm quads, their true potential will never be realized.

JamesMichaelsWhere has this been "proven"? The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem. The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling. 478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't. AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.

Thats not the case with the 478mhz "wall" on the Q9450 it was found in a number of engineering samples so may not be applicable to the final retail version, but the wall was not a motherboard wall, XTreme systems have been testing 4 different ES chips and on the motherboards they tested them on, Q6600's, Q6700, QX6850's and QX9650's all exceeded 478mhz, only the ES Q9450's could not.

I posted one link on Fitseries "for sale" thread, I havent got that link anymore but I am sure he could post it for you, there were others.....as I said, I am not suggesting that the retail chips will have that wall but the results with the ES chips were quite dissapointing I beleive.

Ever think clubit will drop the price on the 6700's again? I would've picked one up if I got paid early enough :(

Hey Wile E, welcome to the club ;)

youl get 4ghz easy on 1.35+ volts. I game on mine at 430fsbx10.5 multiplier @ 4.5GHz :)

however, with the QX9650, the fsb wall is not strictly to do with the motherboard, its the chip itself. some have gotten higher fsb's on their chips, mine dont like a v high fsb. I struggle with 440fsb. Tho its possible a bios revision may help with that. the 1004 bios is playing nicely with my cpu, no issues so far.

Hmmm, swapping out a 4.2ghz q6600 for a 4.2 q9550, guess that would be good for some people. The only new budget yorkie I've seen is the q9300 and that didn't do to well in the over-clocking department, hopefully they got the bugs out since those reviews......I hope, or else I'm waiting for the new extreme editions, guess only time will tell.

JamesMichaelsWhere has this been "proven"? The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem. The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling. 478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't. AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.

Wanna bet lol I got my Q6600@ 4.3ghz 478x9 1.55v with a 0.35v increase on the mch and fsb.
Ok the temps were high and i didnt run a stability test because of the temps but it completed 3dmark06 and scored me 23955 marks the highest on tpu running 38xx series cards.

Id love to see a Q9450 do that.:rockout:

fitseries3the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.



i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.

You think fit?? I was going to grab a q9300 but if it is going to clock like crap I'll just pick up a wolfdale or something.

like tatty said.... read these... it's not as good as they hyped it up to be.

www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/281927-45nm-quad-not-good-investment-yet.html

www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287

since i don't have a quad yet would it be worth getting the q9450? i only want to run it at maybe 3.4 same if i got a q6600.

guess i'll buy q6600 then when it drops to nearly 200 $ .

flashstarIt's not natively quad core. It just has a larger cache and tweaked core. The Q9300 also has a much higher fsb meaning that the multiplier is lower.

The hell with that native quad core crap. Its just a marketing gimmick. Like SLi RAM. If you really want to look at it that way, which quad core is better? AMD's "native" quad core, or Intel's "double" dual core? Looks like Intel has been the winner. And dont say that Im a "fanboy" either. Because I buy w/e is best at the time of my purchase. My last 5 builds have been AMD.

No matter how you look at it, so long as it is in one processor, it IS a quad core.