QX9650 on Anandtech

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:36 am

A very long and interesting article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=3184

It's about overclocking... BUT! Here's something interesting for SPCR

3 GHz, 10W idle, 54W full load on stock voltage, and able to be significantly undervolted? Yes, please!

zoob · Post by **zoob** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:16 am

Holy crap 1.282V for 4 GHz... they've got one cherry chip. Most need 1.35+, and even some recent ones require in excess of 1.40 to bring it stable (mine included).

SebRad · Post by **SebRad** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:33 am

zoob, they're testing the first of the 45nm chips, it's the first (so far only) 45nm chip, hence the long article with much ado about power measuring etc. Yours chip is (most likely) a 65nm chip hence the need for more voltage and more watts.
Now if my motherboard will only take one... (P965 based - so not very likely)
[edit: just looked it up and it will take a 45nm CPU]

Regards, Seb

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:36 am

And now some bad news:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... ads-report

ACCORDING TO A REPORT, Intel has decided to postpone the launch of its 45nm quad-core CPUs because AMD is in such a mess.

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:40 pm

55W for a 3ghz quad core? Seems too good to be true. If only it didn't cost $$$$.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:12 pm

^^Indeed.

Wicked part nontheless though, those are impressive numbers.

murtoz · Post by **murtoz** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:57 pm

Matija wrote:And now some bad news:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... ads-report

ACCORDING TO A REPORT, Intel has decided to postpone the launch of its 45nm quad-core CPUs because AMD is in such a mess.

Damn, I hope they heard wrong...
Still, if you have the $$, the QX9650 is out now (only desktop chip on 45nm - there are dual socket xeon's on 45nm too, but they won't go in a desktop board). The article above applies to the lower clocked Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 versions.
I guess it kinda makes sense for them, nobody to compete with in the high-end market, so they can get rid of the old stock before introducing the new models. Not nice for us though.

zoob · Post by **zoob** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:04 pm

SebRad wrote:zoob, they're testing the first of the 45nm chips, it's the first (so far only) 45nm chip, hence the long article with much ado about power measuring etc. Yours chip is (most likely) a 65nm chip hence the need for more voltage and more watts.

I've got a QX9650... it's an ES, but I've got an additional retail chip coming along as well.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:35 pm

Itâ€™s one of the most interesting articles that Iâ€™ve read on over-clocking and the power data for the 45nm process seems unprecedented even taking into account that it must be a particularly sweet chip.

One of the things that stands out for me is the difference between the power consumption at idle at 1.2GHz and at load at 3.4GHz; itâ€™s 86W AC.
Extrapolating from this and my own experience with a Q6600 G0 suggests that you could build a 3.4GHz Quad core system that consumes ~140W AC at full load. Thatâ€™s running Prime95 so real-world applications will consume less. Cooling that will be a breeze, almost literally.

GHz/Idle power/Load power (Prime95)

1.2/208/220W
3.4/225/294W

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:30 pm

Xbitlabs has a review of Phenom today and they compare power consumption against 45 & 65nm dual and quad core Intel CPUs. Itâ€™s not pretty:

Schlotkins · Post by **Schlotkins** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:05 am

Those quad numbers for 45nm are pretty sick. I was just going to get something for my badaxe, but may need to upgrade ....

JazzJackRabbit · Post by **JazzJackRabbit** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:36 pm

I'm surprised that Anandtech put out such a good article.

Can't wait till January/February when Intel releases mainstream 45 quad core. Time to upgrade from my lowly 4300.

NyteOwl · Post by **NyteOwl** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:11 am

That Phenom 9900 must be an engineering sample as afaik AMD have not released Phenoms over 9600 to the retail channel yet due t some manufacturing problems.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:24 pm

NyteOwl wrote:That Phenom 9900 must be an engineering sample as afaik AMD have not released Phenoms over 9600 to the retail channel yet due t some manufacturing problems.

The Core 2 Quad Q9450 is also an engineering sample and this is fairly common practice for pre-release reviews such as this.
There are strong rumours that Intelâ€™s 45nm process has issues so until Intel and AMD release these chips itâ€™s wise to take these figures as indicative which many of you will do anyway.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:37 pm

Both quads had similar TBL problems which comes L3 memory addressing....

austinbike · Post by **austinbike** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:27 pm

45nm = lower production costs for intel.

There is no way they are sticking with 65nm if 45nm is healthy.

Something stinks in denmark.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:53 pm

austinbike wrote:45nm = lower production costs for intel.

There is no way they are sticking with 65nm if 45nm is healthy.

Something stinks in denmark.

It maybe they don't want to be seen as a monopoly. Even GM and Ford did not want Chrysler to go belly up in the 1980's.

I heard some rumors that Phenoms, because of their design, won't OC well, ie they don't like FSB changes. The rumor continues that AMD may offer an unlocked version like the Black Edition for us psycho OC-ers.

The latest Brisbane stepping is killer.