Q9450![]()
![]()
![]()
if only i played a game that benefitted from a quad core...oh well.
the main factor for these things as far as i am interested, is heat output.
i cant foresee running one at more than 450x8....and that is achievable now with q6600 @ 400x9...q9450 will be less heat restricted obviously...but highly restricted by mobo fsb imo.
im sure the penryn chippies are superior (clocking potential)to kentsfield ...but i wish they'd bring them out with higher multi's at lower cost
500x8 24/7? sure: good luck.
they arent mainstream / are a tiny %>.< age of the market
i reckon this pricing wood be betta
q9550 $316
q9450 $266
q9300 $183
to sell more quads vs c2d's.
Last edited by adamsleath; 10-14-2007 at 03:48 PM.
i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz
Looks like I'm stuck with a Q6600 for 4+GHz quadcore benching as I can't afford to drop $500+ on a quad. Really was hoping for some 45nm goodness. Going to be sad though when 4.6+GHz Q6600's are crushing the equally priced 45nm chips when they can only hit 4.2GHz
yeah but.... i'm thinking about the fsb limits of the mobo chipsets
i thought the chipsets were having some trubble with higher fsb's for quad cores?...vs c2d's
isnt that right?
444x9?...noway is that 500x8 is it?Looks like I'm stuck with a Q6600 for 4+GHz quadcore benching
Last edited by adamsleath; 10-14-2007 at 03:55 PM.
i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz
Heck?
$1399 for 3.2GHz in Q108?
Looking forward to getting one of those E8400s. 3.0ghz for $183
![]()
looks like we will have to get 2 cpu's![]()
a E8500 for clocking it like nuts and a Q9450 for everyday use![]()
nothing wrong with that though... we paid more for a single cpu in the past though![]()
Last edited by naokaji; 10-15-2007 at 01:21 AM.
I gather all the Yorkfield, except Q9300![]()
...
Last edited by n3n3n69; 10-15-2007 at 08:29 AM.
you should have put a big :banana::banana::banana::banana: warning sign before your post... i can see many wetting their pants over that pic...
Lack of BIOS support the reason you dont run it at 8.5x?
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
Last edited by RPGWiZaRD; 10-15-2007 at 08:50 AM.
Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs
If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place
Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs
If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place
looking good, really good... cant wait...
1.1v ! holy power efficiency batman.![]()
i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz
i was thinking why does it go from Q9300 to Q9450? would you assume there would be a Q9350 and Q9400?
my guesses:
Q9350 would have 12MB cache but same clockspeed as Q9300
Q9400 would have 6MB cache but same clockspeed as Q9450
kinda like E6300 2MB and E6320 4MB.
i5 2500k @ 4.6GHz - Corsair A70 | Biostar TP67B+ | G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 2x2GB | MSI HD7950 TF3 | X-Fi Titanium | WD 750GB Black | CM 690 II - Corsair TX850 | 2xDell 2407WFP A04/A03 | Win 7 Pro x64
http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=48222
Yeap, Rev.C0![]()
...
Powered Up By :
...
Powered Up By :
...
Powered Up By :
Nice QX9650 on air![]()
...
Powered Up By :
Bookmarks