Love My Q9650 :)

[the_real_7]

I just switched out my old Q6600 which by far was one of the best chips I ever used and also the longest Ive kept at one time .... Put in this Q9650 and wow am I amazed with it , it runs cool on low voltages and pushes very nice benches , if anyone is still on the core 2 boat and looking for a upgrade this is the way to go for sure and save yourself some money for a better video card , also gotta thank HOSS331 on extreme systems forums for helping tweak out ....

12 HOUR PRIME BLEND

Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P Bios F8
Intel Quad Core Q9650 9/03/09 1.25 vid Fusion Block
3.0 ghz @ 4.0 ghz 9x450 4.4.4.12
G.SKILL PI Black (2 x 2Gb) DDR2 900 4.4.4.12
CORSIAR TX850W
Diamond 4870X2 Stock
WD WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM sata Raid-0
WD WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM sata Raid-0
Seagate 500 7200.11 gig jbod
Seagate 500 7200.11 gig jbod
Creative x-fi
Vista 64bit
Windows 7 64bit

 

[Candymancan]

Your CPU VFSB is kinda high, thats the termination voltage i think. These are 45nm cpu's not 65 like your q6600. Take it down a notch 1.10vs is stock 1.2-1.26v is as high as i would recomend. Personally i dont go above 1.2, you shouldnt need the voltage to even go above 1.10v for only 450fsb anyway, same with the CPU PLL keep it on stock 1.50v. Unless you actually had to go there for only 450fsb

 

[Mav451]

Agree with Candymancan - both your vcore and VTT are high for 4Ghz for an E0 chip. For quads, you might want to look into tweaking your GTL settings, because I'd be concerned about raising the VTT that much.

 

[the_real_7]

Your CPU VFSB is kinda high, thats the termination voltage i think. These are 45nm cpu's not 65 like your q6600. Take it down a notch 1.10vs is stock 1.2-1.26v is as high as i would recomend. Personally i dont go above 1.2, you shouldnt need the voltage to even go above 1.10v for only 450fsb anyway, same with the CPU PLL keep it on stock 1.50v. Unless you actually had to go there for only 450fsb

Thanks candymancan going to try to lower termination to maybe 1.24 - 1.26 as this Q9650 came in at stock at 1.22 and I also agree on the CPU PLL probaly better to bring down to 1.50 , prior i was having some ram problems but i think it was more timing than voltage with this gigabyte board.. Thanks for the help dude will have more results this weekend

gree with Candymancan - both your vcore and VTT are high for 4Ghz for an E0 chip. For quads, you might want to look into tweaking your GTL settings, because I'd be concerned about raising the VTT that much.

Mav451 thanks also im work on the cpu pll first then go back and work on the gtls which is always a pain in the arss , any recommendation how i should start tweaking it

 

[Candymancan]

Yea my cpu came in stock at 1.20v also, but thats because of the motherboard even the manuall claims that you have to use 1.2v. Intel Stock for 45nm is actually 1.10vfsb, and 1.50vPLL.

Intel recomends no higher then 1.16VFSB so you being at 1.30vsb was really high. On my E8400 CO i can stay at 1.10vfsb and 1.50PLL up to around 4200mhz, once i get to 4300-4400 or 490ish fsb thats when i need 1.20vfsb, but i can keep the PLL at 1.50v no matter what. Of course alot of people keep the cpu's on 1.26v 24/7 but i personally wouldnt go there 24/7 because i have heared of degradation overtime. I mean i have gone to 1.26v plenty of times and i havent had problems with my cpu in 8months but for 24/7 i keep it on 1.10v.

Anyway nice CPU, keep tweaking and see what you actually need for 4ghz. Btw is 1.34vcore what you needed to reach 4gig ? Or did you just put it at that ?

 

[Atech]

Yea my cpu came in stock at 1.20v also, but thats because of the motherboard even the manuall claims that you have to use 1.2v. AMD Stock for 45nm is actually 1.10vfsb, and 1.50vPLL.

AMD recomends no higher then 1.16VFSB so you being at 1.30vsb was really high. On my E8400 CO i can stay at 1.10vfsb and 1.50PLL up to around 4200mhz, once i get to 4300-4400 or 490ish fsb thats when i need 1.20vfsb, but i can keep the PLL at 1.50v no matter what. Of course alot of people keep the cpu's on 1.26v 24/7 but i personally wouldnt go there 24/7 because i have heared of degradation overtime. I go 1.26v for benchmark purpose's but no more

You cannot compare Intel's High-K 45 nm and AMD's SOI 45 nm like that
That and the obivous architechtual differences too.

 

[Candymancan]

You cannot compare Intel's High-K 45 nm and AMD's SOI 45 nm like that
That and the obivous architechtual differences too.

Excuss me ? Your confused mister. I have a E8400 45nm not a AMD cpu, the 45nm from Intel quad or c2d is not recomended to go above 1.26vfsb. Plain and simple..... How did you ever come to the conclusion that i was talking about AMD anyway ? I mentioned my E8400 in there once

 

[Mega666]

Yorkfield will handle up to 1.4v constant with vdroop. It maybe a little higher than average but it is not an issue @ 1.344v.

 

[Atech]

Excuss me ? Your confused mister. I have a E8400 45nm not a AMD cpu, the 45nm from Intel quad or c2d is not recomended to go above 1.26vfsb. Plain and simple..... How did you ever come to the conclusion that i was talking about AMD anyway ? I mentioned my E8400 in there once

Based on your post:

Yea my cpu came in stock at 1.20v also, but thats because of the motherboard even the manuall claims that you have to use 1.2v. AMD Stock for 45nm is actually 1.10vfsb, and 1.50vPLL.

AMD recomends no higher then 1.16VFSB so you being at 1.30vsb was really high. On my E8400 CO i can stay at 1.10vfsb and 1.50PLL up to around 4200mhz, once i get to 4300-4400 or 490ish fsb thats when i need 1.20vfsb, but i can keep the PLL at 1.50v no matter what. Of course alot of people keep the cpu's on 1.26v 24/7 but i personally wouldnt go there 24/7 because i have heared of degradation overtime. I mean i have gone to 1.26v plenty of times and i havent had problems with my cpu in 8months but for 24/7 i keep it on 1.10v.

Anyway nice CPU, keep tweaking and see what you actually need for 4ghz. Btw is 1.34vcore what you needed to reach 4gig ? Or did you just put it at that ?

 

[Potatocodone]

^
I laffed

 

[the_real_7]

Anyway nice CPU, keep tweaking and see what you actually need for 4ghz. Btw is 1.34vcore what you needed to reach 4gig ? Or did you just put it at that ?

Thanks she running pretty stable,and Yea i dropped 1 notch to 1.33 passed 12 hours then dropped again to 1.32 failed with restart so mine is one of those yorkfields that take a little more voltage .

Yorkfield will handle up to 1.4v constant with vdroop. It maybe a little higher than average but it is not an issue @ 1.344v.

yea they will handle that from what ive see a lil past 1.4 with LLC off , but they will degrade quick with a cpu termination over 1.40 , but i think im in the green with all my voltages..

Im trying to lower voltages and keep at this clock so i can change my radiator and fans cause god knows its like a helicopter when its on , with fans set at 7 volts , plus i gotta water cool this 4870 x2 not for oc purposes at all since there no gain but because its also sooo loud

 

[Candymancan]

Based on your post:

My bad then i must have had AMD on the brain i was refering to Intel tho as i did mention my E8400 as an example more then once in my posts. I edited my post and removed the AMD i dunno why i said AMD so that was my mistake i must have been scatter brained with a upgrade im about to do.

 

[Mr. Stryker]

I'm still wondering if getting a Q9650 would be an upgrade from my existing Q6700 @ 3.5GHz.

 

[khanis]

That's an awesome overclock.
Nice work.

 

[Zero82z]

I'm still wondering if getting a Q9650 would be an upgrade from my existing Q6700 @ 3.5GHz.

It would be, since a Q9650 would be good for at least 4GHz. However, it probably isn't worth it compared to the price of a full upgrade to an i7 setup (which would be more expensive, but the performance increase would be much more significant).

 

[vsboxerboy]

I take it you have a 22" screen as well?
Background possibly from interfacelift?

Love my q9550 btw

 

[Mr. Stryker]

It would be, since a Q9650 would be good for at least 4GHz. However, it probably isn't worth it compared to the price of a full upgrade to an i7 setup (which would be more expensive, but the performance increase would be much more significant).

Yeah, true, and i5's coming soon anyways, so it's probably better I held off a bit longer.

 

[the_real_7]

Yeah, true, and i5's coming soon anyways, so it's probably better I held off a bit longer.

Id have to disagree just because with the i5 is a downgrade from the i7 and i7 only beats core 2 clock for clock , but core 2 are easier to clock higher , don't spend on a rebuilt system unless your going to get a 20 percent more gain , which your not unless you go i7 , but your system looks great to me so i wouldn't even sweat it , newer is always better but not maybe not in the core 2 vs i5 " Q9650 is a excellent upgrade

That's an awesome overclock.
Nice work.

Thanks dude !!! I like it , definitely hit the core 2 sweet spot

I take it you have a 22" screen as well?
Background possibly from interfacelift?

Love my q9550 btw

yo definitely love the q9550 , high memory requirements but damn does it pay off , at the end maybe you can show some screen shots with your settings Id like to see homie
yea you got it on the money homie I'm a interfaceLift fan to lol

 

[Zero82z]

i7 only beats core 2 clock for clock , but core 2 are easier to clock higher

Not really. Pretty much all 920s can reach 3.8GHz, and many can reach 4GHz and more. And even compared to a C2Q at 4.2GHz, a 3.8GHz i7 would be considerably faster.

 

[the_real_7]

Not really. Pretty much all 920s can reach 3.8GHz, and many can reach 4GHz and more. And even compared to a C2Q at 4.2GHz, a 3.8GHz i7 would be considerably faster.

i agree the i7 is faster at least by 15% 20% but i dont think the i5 is going to have the same advantage over the core 2 and if ya have i decent system i would stick with it

 

[Zero82z]

i agree the i7 is faster at least by 15% 20% but i dont think the i5 is going to have the same advantage over the core 2

i5 will have the same advantage. It's the exact same architecture, and the only major differences compared to the i7 are the lack of a QPI link and a third memory channel, neither of which should have a significant impact in most situations. It's certainly worth keeping a decent system, but it isn't really worth upgrading to a higher-end Core 2 Quad since the benefit you get for the price isn't particularly large.

 

[unrealsword]

Seems kinda detrimental to do this when core i7 920 costs much less...

 

[blase]

Makes me rather excited about the 9650 that UPS says they will be dropping off on Weds.

 

[amenx]

Yea my cpu came in stock at 1.20v also, but thats because of the motherboard even the manuall claims that you have to use 1.2v. Intel Stock for 45nm is actually 1.10vfsb, and 1.50vPLL.

Intel recomends no higher then 1.16VFSB so you being at 1.30vsb was really high.

Intel recommends? Are you talking vcore? Link please. VFSB suggests fsb volts and Intel doesnt recommend anything re fsb volts, thats a mainboard manufacturers concern. If your talking vcore, which I assume you are, then you're way wrong.

Intel actually says that the "functional operational" limits of the 45nm CPUs is from 0.850v to 1.3625v. Within those limits "functionality and long-term reliability can be expected".

The absolute maximum rating is 1.45v. HOWEVER, it states:

"At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be expected. If a device is returned to conditions within functional operation limits after having been subjected to conditions outside these limits, but within the absolute maximum and minimum ratings, the device may be functional, but with its lifetime degraded depending on exposure to conditions exceeding the functional operation condition limits. At conditions exceeding absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be expected. Moreover, if a device is subjected to these conditions for any length of time then, when returned to conditions within the functional operating condition limits, it will either not function, or its reliability will be severely degraded."

Intels data sheet: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/31872602.pdf

A 4ghz OC at 1.26v is very good for a quad and perfectly OK.

 

[Zero82z]

Intel recommends? Are you talking vcore? Link please. VFSB suggests fsb volts and Intel doesnt recommend anything re fsb volts, thats a mainboard manufacturers concern.

Intel has specifications for every single voltage delivered to the CPU or the chipset. They're the ones who designed them, so in order for the products to function, they have to be supplied voltages within the ranges that they were designed for. So yes, Intel does specify a voltage range for VTT. I don't know offhand what that range is, but it's probably listed somewhere in the spec sheet for the chipset.

 

[amenx]

Intel has specifications for every single voltage delivered to the CPU or the chipset. They're the ones who designed them, so in order for the products to function, they have to be supplied voltages within the ranges that they were designed for. So yes, Intel does specify a voltage range for VTT. I don't know offhand what that range is, but it's probably listed somewhere in the spec sheet for the chipset.

Yes you are right, still I had assumed candyman was confusing vfsb with vcore. I guess I was thrown off by a subsequent post referring to the vcore the yorkfields were capable of. Apologies to candyman if I was mistaken.