Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9770 Preview - Updated
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 12:02 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Hello Global Warming
We were curious to see if testing power consumption would confirm our suspicions of the QX9770 running significantly hotter than the QX9650. See for yourself:
At idle this thing is a beast, with the system consuming over 200W while the QX9650 pulled just over 150. It's almost as if EIST isn't functioning properly on the chip (CPU-Z confirmed that it was however).
Under load the power gap is even more ridiculous, no wonder we had so many cooling issues with the QX9770.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
retrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I meant to say "Most reviews of the 3ghz/1333fsb model are clocking up to 4ghz on air -" including the one right here at Anandtech..."Our unlocked QX9650 had no problems hitting 333MHz x 12.0, for a final clock speed of 4.0GHz"
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...
Whats the deal?
JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
12x333 is quite different from 8x400. That might be the problem.nemrod - Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - link
but they have done 10 x 400 on the X48 testretrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
it shouldnt be that much hotter - people are running kentsfield at way higher than that on air - many approaching 500mhz bus. 400 is achievable on basic cheap motherboards with minimal cooling solutions and has been for over 1 year.semo - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
no one is stuck with that situation. you can't even pre-order this chip and it obviously not a retail part. also it wasn't netburst's "high power envelope" that was the problem, it was the actual high power draw of the prescott core that was the problem.JarredWalton - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
The chipset and mobo have to run at higher clocks as well. Maybe that's the problem?MrKaz - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
So going from 1333Mhz FSB to 1600Mhz FSB gives an increase in 58W at idle and 75W at full load...Then maybe it’s better not release 1600 FSB cpus at all