Our Intel Core 2 Extreme quad-core QX 9650 is posted

[road-runner]

Check it out http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intelqx9650_review/

[Waco]

Those benchmarks between the new quad and the old quad look pretty off...what's going on with them? I can't imagine the Q6600 performs THAT much worse.

 

EDIT: That, and the overclocked setup performing worse from time to time also makes no sense...

 

EDIT2: For the 3dmark tests, was the OC'd version not stable enough to run the CPU tests?

[Bosco]

Those benchmarks between the new quad and the old quad look pretty off...what's going on with them? I can't imagine the Q6600 performs THAT much worse.

 

EDIT: That, and the overclocked setup performing worse from time to time also makes no sense...

 

EDIT2: For the 3dmark tests, was the OC'd version not stable enough to run the CPU tests?

 

You have to remember this chip has 12MB of cache vs 8 on a Q6600 so that will make pretty good jump in performance.

 

Most of the benchmarks the overclocked part walked on everything, as for games alot of that comes down to the games inself, which is why we are in the process of updating them.

 

As for 3dmark the board just gave out it had enough, once a new board arrives the 3dmark OC will be added hopefully that won't be to long of a wait..... Knock on wood.

[Waco]

You have to remember this chip has 12MB of cache vs 8 on a Q6600 so that will make pretty good jump in performance.

I do expect a jump in speed...but near 100% on a few tests? That's crazy even taking into account the increase in clock speed.

 

I do hope it's true though, I'm looking for a new mobo/cpu setup for the spring.

[Bosco]

Trust me they are accurate

[Waco]

Trust me they are accurate

Then it seems that I need to get a QX9650.

[Bosco]

You and me both I can beat those Quad 6600 scores no problem but I get my butt handed to by the 9650 lol its like racing a Station wagon against a Lamborghini some tests its brutal

 

Raven thinks this chip has some great potential for awesome overclocks so it will be intresting to see with a better board what this baby will do.

[Bleeble]

Sucks about the mobo. I eagerly await an update to the OCing section.

[kingdingeling]

Raven, you BROKE your 680i DFI board? Sad to hear, but somehow it's comical. I can picture you wanting to get this beast up and running (heck it's the fastest processor money can buy you!), and then that happens, I'd be extremely 'unhappy'.

 

Can't wait for the updated OC info

[Guest Raven65]

Personally,

at this time I don't think I'll own much less use another DFI board.

Their customer service is the pits.

They launch boards knowing bios are bad and hope to get away with it till an update.

When we reviewed the 680I board it was from the first batch that was launched, it fried two sticks of ram due to a bios overvolt problem with it. which was something they knew about.

The p35-t32r can't run crossfire with the version we have. All we got was ut-oh when we talked to their tech support about it a month ago. basically their answer was you must have one of the original boards ut-oh it doesn't run crossfire, we revised the board.

Great launch a board that doesn't do what it says it's suppose to do.

 

Back to the processor, to coin a phrase it is 100% kick a_ _.

I cannot wait to get another board that is ready for it.

I still cannot understand why people would question my intregity though.

If you have this processor and run the benches we do they are 100% recreatable.

[mattwalter85]

why were all the intel setups given the 8800GTS 640mb card when the AMD was only given the 320Mb version?

[cchalogamer]

why were all the intel setups given the 8800GTS 640mb card when the AMD was only given the 320Mb version?

Likely due to time constraints and the lack of it meaning anything in the TRUE CPU benchmarks. (Gaming benchmarks dont mean so much except at lo res anyway, either that or they need high end SLI/Crossfire to help remove the GPU limitations in most cases)

 

As for the massive gains in some tests:

The 3DMark06 CPU score for example is capable of using the extra L2 and the quad core so it shows massive improvements, where as many games dont show much at all over the other Core 2s

Then take Need For Speed: Most Wanted, a game that doesnt show much support for dual core/quad, and you get much less gains from the new CPU.

Now as for OCed loosing out to stock, possibly instability in the application at that speed/voltage combo. Likely something that with time and a motherboard that doesnt take a dump something that could be worked on. In fact now that I think about it it might not be a bad idea to rerun all these test with a different high end motherboard to see if the small inconsistancies people are questioning are in part related to the motherboard used. But at the same time remember that a 5% margin of error shoudl reallybe included in any benchmark anyway, look at the 3DMark06 CPU scores again, it's the same CPU test at every resolution, but as you cna see the numbers arent the same for every run, and never will be 100% identical.

 

I think we all know that there are a ton of factors that decided how well something performs, so this is what we have for now, I ecnourage everyone to read OTHER reviews on the web aswell, afterall some sites likely test the CPU based more on your needs than OCC, afterall OCC's target is a bit different than many other sites.