<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[The new conqueror is here, the analysis of Core 2 Quad CPU, QX9770]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>I recalled that Intel was just launched its Yorkfield 45nm quad core CPU</p>
<p>Intel release Core 2 Quad QX9650 333X9=&gt;3G cache 6MB x 2 version to replace the </p>
<p>65nm QX6850 333X9=&gt;3G cache 4MB x 2. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, </p>
<p>the Dual core Wolfdale(45nm) CPU will be launched in market before this month. </p>
<p>I hope that can improve the issues of high temperature and high power consumption when the system runs under high FSB.</p>
<p>It really surprise me that Intel releases a higher model of Quad core CPU later on, </p>
<p>the core 2 quad CPU, QX9770, 400x8 =&gt; 3.2G, cache up to 6MB x 2. </p>
<p>That is the highest end model of the series. Also,</p>
<p>it is another model that breakthrough 3G after dual coreE8500. </p>
<p>You guys might know that C2D’s FSB could be reach 450~600MHz.</p>
<p>Besides, C2Q’s FSB is also can climb up to 400 to 500MHz.</p>
<p>This is the first in history that Intel set their C2Q processor’s default FSB</p>
<p>At 400MHz. </p>
<p>Let’s take a look at our super star, Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770.</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7498/qx977001qv2.jpg" alt="qx977001qv2.jpg" /></p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8529/qx977002je2.jpg" alt="qx977002je2.jpg" /></p>
<p>It test with the Motherboard DFI LANParty LT X38-T2R</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9185/qx977003jd3.jpg" alt="qx977003jd3.jpg" /></p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1184/qx977004an5.jpg" alt="qx977004an5.jpg" /></p>
<p>Up to now, there is only X48 chipset can be officially supports rated FSB1066 processor. </p>
<p>Some likes P35 or X38 may occurs problem while the FSB is around 1333/1066. </p>
<p>But one thing I knew is, most of motherboard manufacturers are putting efforts to fix those BIOS issue of P35/ X38 right now. </p>
<p>I believe that won’t be a problem soon that P35 &amp; X38 motherboard can support QX9770 stably.</p>
<p>The specification of the test system</p>
<p>CPU:INTEL Core 2 Quad QX9770</p>
<p>MB: DFI LANParty LT X38 T2R</p>
<p>DRAM:CORSAIR Dominator TWIN2X2048-8888C4DF</p>
<p>VGA:ELSA 8800GT 512M</p>
<p>HD:Seagate 7200.10 320G </p>
<p>POWER:POWER:Corsair HX520W Modular Power Supply</p>
<p>Cooler:Thermaltake V1</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5332/qx977005gu0.jpg" alt="qx977005gu0.jpg" /></p>
<p>CPU: 400X8=&gt;3200Mhz</p>
<p>DRAM: DDRII 800 CL3 3-3-9</p>
<p>SUPER PI 32M&amp;CPUMARK</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8742/qx9770dpi1mmb6.png" alt="qx9770dpi1mmb6.png" /></p>
<p>SUPER PI 32MX4</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2236/qx9770dpi32mun0.png" alt="qx9770dpi32mun0.png" /></p>
<p>PCMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5238/qx9770dpcmarkyx7.png" alt="qx9770dpcmarkyx7.png" /></p>
<p>CrystalMark</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/1443/qx9770dcmnp2.png" alt="qx9770dcmnp2.png" /></p>
<p>CINEBENCH R10</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5171/qx9770dcbqg9.png" alt="qx9770dcbqg9.png" /></p>
<p>OC</p>
<p>CPU: 400X10=&gt;4000Mhz  1.328V</p>
<p>DARM: DDRII 800 CL3 3-3-9</p>
<p>SUPER PI 32M&amp;CPUMARK</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9291/qx97704gpi1mvq9.png" alt="qx97704gpi1mvq9.png" /></p>
<p>SUPER PI 32MX4</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9149/qx97704gpi32msx8.png" alt="qx97704gpi32msx8.png" /></p>
<p>PCMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6174/qx97704gpcmarknr8.png" alt="qx97704gpcmarknr8.png" /></p>
<p>Crystal Mark</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3797/qx97704gcmqu7.png" alt="qx97704gcmqu7.png" /></p>
<p>CINEBENCH R10</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1866/qx97704gcbmj2.png" alt="qx97704gcbmj2.png" /></p>
<p>ELSA 8800GT 512M,600/1800</p>
<p>3DMARK2003</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7981/qx97704g2003vl2.png" alt="qx97704g2003vl2.png" /></p>
<p>3DMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4562/qx97704g2005oj0.png" alt="qx97704g2005oj0.png" /></p>
<p>3DMARK2006</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2259/qx97704g2006ua6.png" alt="qx97704g2006ua6.png" /></p>
<p>Frankly, the 45nm process CPU is really having more advantages in overclocking.</p>
<p>The previous model 65nm process CPU QX6X00 series, the 3.6G with 1.35 to 1.45V is almost shows the excellence of itself. </p>
<p>The new process, 45nm, brings an obvious improvement in performance. </p>
<p>I found that QX9x00 series(45nm) CPU is easy to reach 4G stably under 1.4V.</p>
<p>In fact, I didn’t make any temperature comparison between the heats out from the CPU cooler of 45nm &amp; 65nm CPU. </p>
<p>But I felt that the heat air out from 45nm CPU is lower than 65nm CPU. </p>
<p>That is a big improvement on heat dissipation issue than C2D period. </p>
<p>For my personal opinion, QX9770 is a brand new processor with 400MHz FSB,</p>
<p> but the OC performance in FSB is a bit not as good as QX9650(with P35 &amp; X38). </p>
<p>Maybe the reason is something about that P35/ X38 are start at FSB 266/333MHz. </p>
<p>I really hope that motherboard manufacturer will adjust the BIOS to let QX9770 to perform much better.  </p>
<p>Anyway, I will make a more formal comparison when X48 is launched. </p>
<p>To see whether QX9770 can performs better.</p>
<p>In-coming review:</p>
<p>CORSAIR CM3X1024-1800C7DIN</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/584/qx977006ki3.jpg" alt="qx977006ki3.jpg" /></p>
<p>MSI X 38 Diamonds</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9683/qx977007fw8.jpg" alt="qx977007fw8.jpg" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//topic/5639/the-new-conqueror-is-here-the-analysis-of-core-2-quad-cpu-qx9770</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 02:15:52 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//topic/5639.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:10:18 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to The new conqueror is here, the analysis of Core 2 Quad CPU, QX9770 on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:50:26 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>that is a hell nice chip...</p>
<p>but right now I don't see any numbers from it.. probably as you wrote on your tests it's because there's still no mainboard that supports is really...</p>
<p>anyway what's actually the highest stable oc that you've been able to reach?</p>
<p>thanks for sharing!</p>
<p>Marco</p>
]]></description><link>https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111171</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111171</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[principino1984]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:50:26 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to The new conqueror is here, the analysis of Core 2 Quad CPU, QX9770 on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:33:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>Amazing Cpu!!!</p>
<p>thanks, i'm so curious to see the MSI X38 mainboard !</p>
<p>Bye</p>
<p>Max</p>
]]></description><link>https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111170</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111170</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[megthebest]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:33:46 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to The new conqueror is here, the analysis of Core 2 Quad CPU, QX9770 on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:10:18 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>I recalled that Intel was just launched its Yorkfield 45nm quad core CPU</p>
<p>Intel release Core 2 Quad QX9650 333X9=&gt;3G cache 6MB x 2 version to replace the </p>
<p>65nm QX6850 333X9=&gt;3G cache 4MB x 2. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, </p>
<p>the Dual core Wolfdale(45nm) CPU will be launched in market before this month. </p>
<p>I hope that can improve the issues of high temperature and high power consumption when the system runs under high FSB.</p>
<p>It really surprise me that Intel releases a higher model of Quad core CPU later on, </p>
<p>the core 2 quad CPU, QX9770, 400x8 =&gt; 3.2G, cache up to 6MB x 2. </p>
<p>That is the highest end model of the series. Also,</p>
<p>it is another model that breakthrough 3G after dual coreE8500. </p>
<p>You guys might know that C2D’s FSB could be reach 450~600MHz.</p>
<p>Besides, C2Q’s FSB is also can climb up to 400 to 500MHz.</p>
<p>This is the first in history that Intel set their C2Q processor’s default FSB</p>
<p>At 400MHz. </p>
<p>Let’s take a look at our super star, Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770.</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7498/qx977001qv2.jpg" alt="qx977001qv2.jpg" /></p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/8529/qx977002je2.jpg" alt="qx977002je2.jpg" /></p>
<p>It test with the Motherboard DFI LANParty LT X38-T2R</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9185/qx977003jd3.jpg" alt="qx977003jd3.jpg" /></p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1184/qx977004an5.jpg" alt="qx977004an5.jpg" /></p>
<p>Up to now, there is only X48 chipset can be officially supports rated FSB1066 processor. </p>
<p>Some likes P35 or X38 may occurs problem while the FSB is around 1333/1066. </p>
<p>But one thing I knew is, most of motherboard manufacturers are putting efforts to fix those BIOS issue of P35/ X38 right now. </p>
<p>I believe that won’t be a problem soon that P35 &amp; X38 motherboard can support QX9770 stably.</p>
<p>The specification of the test system</p>
<p>CPU:INTEL Core 2 Quad QX9770</p>
<p>MB: DFI LANParty LT X38 T2R</p>
<p>DRAM:CORSAIR Dominator TWIN2X2048-8888C4DF</p>
<p>VGA:ELSA 8800GT 512M</p>
<p>HD:Seagate 7200.10 320G </p>
<p>POWER:POWER:Corsair HX520W Modular Power Supply</p>
<p>Cooler:Thermaltake V1</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5332/qx977005gu0.jpg" alt="qx977005gu0.jpg" /></p>
<p>CPU: 400X8=&gt;3200Mhz</p>
<p>DRAM: DDRII 800 CL3 3-3-9</p>
<p>SUPER PI 32M&amp;CPUMARK</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/8742/qx9770dpi1mmb6.png" alt="qx9770dpi1mmb6.png" /></p>
<p>SUPER PI 32MX4</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2236/qx9770dpi32mun0.png" alt="qx9770dpi32mun0.png" /></p>
<p>PCMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5238/qx9770dpcmarkyx7.png" alt="qx9770dpcmarkyx7.png" /></p>
<p>CrystalMark</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/1443/qx9770dcmnp2.png" alt="qx9770dcmnp2.png" /></p>
<p>CINEBENCH R10</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5171/qx9770dcbqg9.png" alt="qx9770dcbqg9.png" /></p>
<p>OC</p>
<p>CPU: 400X10=&gt;4000Mhz  1.328V</p>
<p>DARM: DDRII 800 CL3 3-3-9</p>
<p>SUPER PI 32M&amp;CPUMARK</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9291/qx97704gpi1mvq9.png" alt="qx97704gpi1mvq9.png" /></p>
<p>SUPER PI 32MX4</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9149/qx97704gpi32msx8.png" alt="qx97704gpi32msx8.png" /></p>
<p>PCMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6174/qx97704gpcmarknr8.png" alt="qx97704gpcmarknr8.png" /></p>
<p>Crystal Mark</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3797/qx97704gcmqu7.png" alt="qx97704gcmqu7.png" /></p>
<p>CINEBENCH R10</p>
<p><img src="http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1866/qx97704gcbmj2.png" alt="qx97704gcbmj2.png" /></p>
<p>ELSA 8800GT 512M,600/1800</p>
<p>3DMARK2003</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7981/qx97704g2003vl2.png" alt="qx97704g2003vl2.png" /></p>
<p>3DMARK2005</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4562/qx97704g2005oj0.png" alt="qx97704g2005oj0.png" /></p>
<p>3DMARK2006</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2259/qx97704g2006ua6.png" alt="qx97704g2006ua6.png" /></p>
<p>Frankly, the 45nm process CPU is really having more advantages in overclocking.</p>
<p>The previous model 65nm process CPU QX6X00 series, the 3.6G with 1.35 to 1.45V is almost shows the excellence of itself. </p>
<p>The new process, 45nm, brings an obvious improvement in performance. </p>
<p>I found that QX9x00 series(45nm) CPU is easy to reach 4G stably under 1.4V.</p>
<p>In fact, I didn’t make any temperature comparison between the heats out from the CPU cooler of 45nm &amp; 65nm CPU. </p>
<p>But I felt that the heat air out from 45nm CPU is lower than 65nm CPU. </p>
<p>That is a big improvement on heat dissipation issue than C2D period. </p>
<p>For my personal opinion, QX9770 is a brand new processor with 400MHz FSB,</p>
<p> but the OC performance in FSB is a bit not as good as QX9650(with P35 &amp; X38). </p>
<p>Maybe the reason is something about that P35/ X38 are start at FSB 266/333MHz. </p>
<p>I really hope that motherboard manufacturer will adjust the BIOS to let QX9770 to perform much better.  </p>
<p>Anyway, I will make a more formal comparison when X48 is launched. </p>
<p>To see whether QX9770 can performs better.</p>
<p>In-coming review:</p>
<p>CORSAIR CM3X1024-1800C7DIN</p>
<p><img src="http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/584/qx977006ki3.jpg" alt="qx977006ki3.jpg" /></p>
<p>MSI X 38 Diamonds</p>
<p><img src="http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9683/qx977007fw8.jpg" alt="qx977007fw8.jpg" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111169</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.xtremehardware.com/forum//post/111169</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[windwithme]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:10:18 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>