Q9550 on Maximus SE

Just started with this little chip. Not a good one i guess, FSB should be better, with 8.5 multi max this is a waste. Have seen other Q's doin 480~490mhz so this could very wel be just a bad chip. Coretemp doesnt seem to work properly...

Maximus Formula SE 0903
Q9550 & Tuniq Tower
Cellshock PC8000
Silverstone Zeus 750

Max FSB with multi 7 (ram 1/1 4-4-4-12)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/loc_oc/7x451.jpg
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=284796

Max 1M with 1.35v bios:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...sLLenabled.jpg

Max 1M with 1.45v bios:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6..._oc/85x444.jpg
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=284795

Have not had much time to play yet but i had a quick look with prime. A little more vcore and 3650mhz shoud do i guess:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...primeERROR.jpg

Not a strong chip but fun to play with. Next stop is 3D.

I like my qx9650 a lot more.

Well if it's like the QX6950, peeps will get 3.6ghz with low voltages and less heat output than current Q6600... popularity will depend on the retail price...

Seems like most everyone is seeing lower max fsb on yorkfield vs. kentsfield. :(

I already wondered who bought Rol-co's q9550 :D

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=274661

Max FSB I had was 470. I never got a screenie though. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Well if it's like the QX6950, peeps will get 3.6ghz with low voltages and less heat output than current Q6600... popularity will depend on the retail price...

---

Indeed though i do think this particular one might be a bad example. If not a good Q66 G0 wil do :D Price at launch (at least here and for now) wil be rather high compared to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

I already wondered who bought Rol-co's q9550 :D

---

Not me although this one might look familiair :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loc.o

Indeed though i do think this particular one might be a bad example. If not a good Q66 G0 wil do :D Price at launch (at least here and for now) wil be rather high compared to those.

---

I wish I had a Q9650 to play with, So your on a normal Q9550 and your able to do .5 multiples?

Not sure whats first Maximus Formula bios that does the .5 multi. I started with 0401 which doesnt and switched to 0903 for 8.5

try 0907 it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

try 0907 it does.

---

I wish I could do .5s with my Q6600 G0 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loc.o

Not sure whats first Maximus Formula bios that does the .5 multi. I started with 0401 which doesnt and switched to 0903 for 8.5

---

602 ;)

903 has the option for selectable half multi's, but doesn't work. 907 lets you select the half multi's.

n00b question: how come you have this chip? isn’t it supposed to be released later (Feb 2008 or something)?
and what cooling is used here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firas

n00b question: how come you have this chip? isn’t it supposed to be released later (Feb 2008 or something)?
and what cooling is used here?

---

It's an Engineering Sample (ES) and they are given to certain people, and sometimes those certain people sell the chips to other people with a lot of cash.

He is using air cooling (Tuniq Tower 120).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noob-ftw

It's an Engineering Sample (ES) and they are given to certain people, and sometimes those certain people sell the chips to other people with a lot of cash.

He is using air cooling (Tuniq Tower 120).

---

that’s nice, well… if anybody has a ES of the Q9450 …. give me a missed call :D

is that +200Mhz & +0.5 multi worth picking Q9550 over Q9450? I think this would mean +400Mhz extra performance for additional $220 :shakes:

it still will be 200mhz extra at the same FSB speed ( 400 in my example ) in my opinion same money /performance issue as with E6600 and E6700, in the long run they top out at the same frequency...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firas

n00b question: how come you have this chip? isn’t it supposed to be released later (Feb 2008 or something)?
and what cooling is used here?

---

Tuniq Tower. A friend of mine gave it to me so i can try it out for a while.

just a quick question

You have the chip at 3657 under load for 45mins stressing 4 cores and its only reading 37 degrees on one of the cores and 29 on the rest?

Could that be right? i thought they were only a few watts less heat output than the kentsfield?? If thats true thenthis is great news.

Still though thats a dissappointing duss speed for sure? if heat isnt limiting it i wonder what is? lack of volts??

maybe it wil take alot of volts to get the higher fbus speed at which point these yorkfields will be running just as hot as their kentsfield predecessors when overclocked....

confused... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

just a quick question

You have the chip at 3657 under load for 45mins stressing 4 cores and its only reading 37 degrees on one of the cores and 29 on the rest?

confused... :confused:

---

Many yorkfields CPU's have this issue, mostly 2 cores are a higher temp ( read sometimes way higher temp ) then the other cores... one core failed here (see the prime error)...
Till now it seems the FSB of the yorkfields is at or at a lower level then the Kentsfields, though putting out way less heat and needing less Vcore to run the same frequencies... though the lower multi kindda puts off many clockers... as you need higher FSB to achieve the same clocks...

I got a Q9550 also. I don't think it will do 4ghz easilly. 3.8ghz is stable, 3.9 maybe. 3.95 is almost the limit. They run really cool :)

The problem is the low multi, it's a shame considering they max out at 470-480fsb :(

Mine have 470 fsbwall, for stable 4G need more 1.4v - this CPU is all about garbage (((

it's not garbage, it's binning

i wonder if simply giving more volts will get them past the wall if you have tec/phase cooling?
or is it called a wall for a reason!!

possibly few more fsb with subzero

Cold helps for max FSB although not sure how much actuaqly with a quad. Me E6600 did 1M max 550mhz on air, 590mhz on dry ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

just a quick question

You have the chip at 3657 under load for 45mins stressing 4 cores and its only reading 37 degrees on one of the cores and 29 on the rest?

---

core 2 and 3 always on 29 degrees here, think its coretemp.

i think it depends :)

my 6550 did 550mhz 1m air and 620mhz dry ice.

and quad 460 air and low 500 on dry ice.

but i do think everyone is getting lower fsb on yorkies. my 9650 as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supertim0r

I got a Q9550 also. I don't think it will do 4ghz easilly. 3.8ghz is stable, 3.9 maybe. 3.95 is almost the limit. They run really cool :)

The problem is the low multi, it's a shame considering they max out at 470-480fsb :(

---

This fsb wall, plus the high price of a 9650 (with 9 multi), will force the majority of the oc'ing community to 8XXX cpu's.

At least i'm thinking about it... :p:


Thanks for sharing your results. :)

if only they kept the 9x :para:

the 9450 will be great (price/perf.) for quad 3.6ghz daily