Nice results: Q9300 @ Intel boxed (56K warning)

ZoLKoRn's Thread inspired me for sharing my Q9300 results I've done a few weeks ago.

Setup:
Asus P5B "Vanilla" BIOS 1803 (VMods: VCore, VDroop, VMch, VDimm)
Core 2 Q9300 ES
OCZ 2*1GiB DDR2-800 "Crossfire"
Club3D Geforce 6600GT
Silverstone OP1000


Let's have a look:

Nice VCore:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406


First try and I had success:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406


Probably one of the ugliest runs ever according to efficiency, LOL :D

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406


4 Cores working and 490 Mhz FSB:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406


1M must not fail of course:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406


These are NOT my best results, I reached 492 Mhz FSB yet (screens of PiFast, SPi 1M and WPrime 32M exists, but not on hand on my internet pc. :( I will push the CPU again when 8800GS-testing is finished. ;)

PS: Can anybody tell me how to shrink the attached images? Even if scores are nice, there's no reason to show them twice. ;)

Very nice;)Seems that they don't have FSb problems after all

hangin out to see more of these q9300's.
will 6 - 12 mb cache make difference; i'll waitnsee.

The multiplier is very low and even 550X8 is not enough for a lot of people.

That's true, even if my Q9300 is a nice piece of hardware I would recommend a Q9450: Doubled L2-Cache, higher multiplier and still cheap. With a realistic FSB wall at 475 Mhz you will have 3.8 Ghz which is about a Q6600 @ 4 Ghz with less power consumption and due to that acceptable for air cooling. :cool:

then who will buy 9300? :wasntme: have to see how much real price diff between 9300-9450 and q6600 of course. throw em all in the pot and see what is best value.

"most people" will get e8400 then if "550x8" isnt enuf.

q6600 and q9300 supposedly on price par - which one for "most people" air cooled.?

q9450 will be more expensive....and not "cheap" for "most people" imo...but it may be the best value...or just the one that outclocks/outperforms an oced q6600...

need $$/performance points comparison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsleath

then who will buy 9300?

---

I agree. The low multiplier put much more pressure on you motherboard being able to run the quad at nice high fsb's to achieve this ~3.6Ghz performance.

That being said, thanks Hyperhorn for sharing your results :)

Very nice! and look good for lower Vcore don't know why my chip like high Vcore

:up:

During 8800GS/384-tests i was really stressed out, because system gets unstable above 470 Mhz FSB. Sorry, I don't feel like testing Q9300 again at the moment, 'cause it will be very time-conuming for sure to squeeze out a handful of Mhz. :rolleyes:

BUT 492 Mhz-screens are available now :)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Q6600 vs Q9300 comparison.

-bZj

Nice volts., I wonder how much OC it would be at 1.5 volts. seems no problem with fsb at all.

nice results try some more Vcore

Thx for the comments :toast:

Voltages(BIOS) used:
1.35V VCore
1.55V NB
1,45V FSB Termination (= max.)

Nice results!! I´ve read somewhere that vCore=>1.45@air, can be quite damaging for these 45nm CPU´s, but i can be wrong :confused:

Try a better cooling system and then give more volts to it :D

Yes, degradation is an existing problem, but some guys don't know/ believe it and it becomes a doom loop: After using a high VCore more VCore for the same clock is necessary at shorter intervals. :(
I don't have much free-time at the moment, but dice-pot is here. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Envydia007

Nice volts., I wonder how much OC it would be at 1.5 volts. seems no problem with fsb at all.

---

It's not advisable to push 1.5 volts through a 45nm quad on air for daily use, that is such a no no :shakes: Unless you don't care and get another chip a year later...or you are using extreme cooling... or just want to bench some stuff

Nice clocking chip sir , but such a high FSB is nothing for me 24/7...

that is way to low of a multi. you would need a great board to go to a good 4ghz

Nice results

Thx for your comments! :)

I will test P965 strap tweaks for some SPi improvements @hwbot. :)

Wait.. this is done on a p5b vanilla?
I thought these boards sucked for OC'ing? do bios updates make it OC better?
cause i got one laying around doing nothing :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMH

Very nice;)Seems that they don't have FSb problems after all

---

I tested few Q93, noone could hit 500FSB on various boards. Some of these boards can hit 550FSB with Kentsfield. And 580+ on Wolfdale.

@triple_A: P5B Vanilla is a good choice, just try it. The same Q9300 can't boot Windows at 450 Mhz on a Gigabyte P35-DS3 (rev 1.0), >40 Mhz less than on my P5B...

Cool, i'll give it a shot then.:)
Perhaps trade my p5n-e + e4300 combo for a better cpu.. hmm.

You remember my nasty SPi 32M-run?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1202512406

There was definetively something wrong, but however the efficiency was very bad because I was just looking for stable clocks, not good scores.

Now have a look at the attached image.

--> Better result with 615 Mhz less. Sadly the P5B doesn't like those Cellshocks, but I will join hwbot 32M soon for sure. :cool: There's just one guy who did run 32M at 36xx Mhz like my Q9300 can do. :yepp:

That's P35 over 965 nicely demonstrated there... most peeps are in love with high FSB but on some boards higher speeds don't necessarily reflect better overal performance..; each board/chipset has it's sweetspot...

Too bad Intel crippled this CPU with only 6mb cache...

That's really a nice run! :clap:

Also, your RAM isn't that bad, what voltage did you use?

Thank you!
RAM was at +0,5V (BIOS), hardwaremonitor says 2.320V which is pretty nice IMO :D
btw I'm still at Intel boxed :ROTF: