Newegg has Q9300 oem

[nyker96]

pretty cool x3350 awesome @315!

 

[dajeepster]

and they have the retail for $325... i'm trying to resist

 

[bryanW1995]

actually it's 323.98...nudge...you're only getting 33,000ppd right now, why not shoot for 40k?

 

[Hajpoj]

Remember, some people have to have their habits RIGHT NOW! Some people like cocaine, some like silicon... We're all human

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
according to the xbit article, 70w cooler at load with the max OC. The nice thing for me is that it looks like only 36w more than an e6850 at 3.7, which is a good approximation for my e6750 at 3.6. The thermals were the biggest reason for me to hold out for the penryn quads, hopefully they won't disappoint

Doing some simple math, assuming 70W difference, that is 1.68 kw/day, so ~ 50 kw /month. assuming 10cents per kw hr that is $5 per month in savings.

Careful what you're comparing, though - the Q9300 has much less cache than any other chip, so it consumes disproportionately less power than any other chip, too.

Here's XBitlabs comparing the qx9650 (45nm, 12MB) to the qx6850 (65nm, 8MB)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...e-qx9650_13.html#sect0
Still ~40 watts less for an even greater speed boost.

The Q9300 is an oddity, as the only quad core out there with a small cache. I guess they wanted to create a sort of "intro" product, rather than quads always being equated to expensiveness? The official MSRP is the same as the Q6600, so when supply and demand return to normal, it is intended to directly replace the 6600 on store shelves.

 

[bryanW1995]

the Q9300 is cheaper to make both because it's a penryn and now b/c it's got less cache, so intel wins twice over with it. The scary part is that this el-cheapo quad is still faster than anything amd has out now or even on the horizon, so intel is basically competing with itself right now. If AMD had competitive quads the Q9300 would be under $200 right now.


do you really think that the extra 6mb cache will consume another 30w at load? that seems excessive to me. of course, I personally don't care about the extra $5/month, I just brought it up for the budget oc'er in all of us. I'm much more worried about the DT article reminding us that chrysler is in the doldrums right now that could seriously impact my future ability to purchase quads. heck, that could impact my future ability to purchase celerons Everyone go buy a chrysler or jeep from me and I'll help keep the economy rolling I swear!

 

[BigMoosey74]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Neweggs early adopter pricing:I've already seen the X3350 oem in stock for $315, I wouldn't touch this one at $300 with a ten foot pole

Hahahah, the Irony..it hurts my sides. I wouldn't touch you, with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.

No seriously though Mr Grinch, you are spot on with that one. It is a bad banana with a greasy black peel.

 

[dajeepster]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
actually it's 323.98...nudge...you're only getting 33,000ppd right now, why not shoot for 40k?

don't tempt me... i'm thinking how I can make the new bike payment and get this too... let's see... park the jeep and drive the speed limit... yeah... that's it... that's what i'll do... honestly... i have 9 oc'd computers... I don't think i'll be able to drive the speed limit... the judge said I was fine as long as I don't end up in his courtroom ever again for doing 20mph over the speed limit... it sounded like to me that I have permission up to 20mph over.. just not over 20mph

 

[dajeepster]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Neweggs early adopter pricing:I've already seen the X3350 oem in stock for $315, I wouldn't touch this one at $300 with a ten foot pole

Where ?

moogr.com (sister company to xcaliberpc, links to the same warehouse) use coupon code "marchmadness"

Retail box after coupon applied $324.99, OEM after coupon $314.99

Here's the link to the OEM

it's not accepting the code for the retail box when i go to checkout... it doesn't accept the code either even if I do google checkout

 

[dajeepster]

Originally posted by: dajeepster

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Neweggs early adopter pricing:I've already seen the X3350 oem in stock for $315, I wouldn't touch this one at $300 with a ten foot pole

Where ?

moogr.com (sister company to xcaliberpc, links to the same warehouse) use coupon code "marchmadness"

Retail box after coupon applied $324.99, OEM after coupon $314.99

Here's the link to the OEM

it's not accepting the code for the retail box when i go to checkout... it doesn't accept the code either even if I do google checkout

ah crap... i got it to work in google checkout... I might as well start naming any future unborn children of mine "Intel 1", "Intel 2".. etc etc... can't forget about the red-headed step children either "Amd 1" and "Amd 2"

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What am I missing? Isnt the Q6600 for not much more a better CPU overall?

Not at all. Every single benchmark will be won by the Q9300/X3320. Period. And that's not including the fact that it runs cooler, should overclock better based on the 45nm process (assuming a board that can hit 2000+fsb) AND comes with SSE4.1.

The faster FSB, 100mhz, and core improvements make it win 7% avg in everything.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html
Q9300 vs. Q6600. Q6600 didn't win ONE test.

Look at the power consumption. Q9300 is 100mhz more. Now look at the overclocked ones at Q6600 3.6ghz vs Q9300 3.5ghz. Which you would probably need to get close to the Q9300. A full 70watts!

I might want the 3350 if I bothered though. Easier overclock without huge FSB.

But your wallet usually dictates what you do...LOL

Too bad you can't read your own link:

Although Yorkfield processors can overclock up to 4GHz (without any extreme cooling solutions involved), Core 2 Quad Q9300 cannot reach that frequency. Since the new quad-core generation started supporting 1333MHz bus, their multipliers got considerably lower. For example, Core 2 Quad Q9300 we have discussed today works with 7.5x multiplier, which doesn?t allow this processor to get past 3.4-3.5GHz because contemporary mainboards have pretty limited functionality when it comes to increasing the FSB frequency past 460-470MHz by quad-core CPUs. And this is actually even lower than the maximum frequency quad core processors from the Kentsfield family, including Core 2 Quad Q6600, can reach.

As a result, Core 2 Quad Q6600 may remain a better choice for overclocker systems, because it may run faster than Core 2 Quad Q9300 in some cases. Moreover, overclocking of previous-generation quad-core processors is a simpler procedure that doesn?t depend that much on the mainboard functionality.

So, it turns out pretty hard to make the final conclusion about the youngest quad-core Yorkfield processor. The new Core 2 Quad Q9300 is definitely a great product, but only until you get to overclocking. From the overclocking prospective we have to be more careful with our verdict and would call it an interesting but maybe not the most optimal choice.

So in other words contrary to your beliefs unless you're running your CPU at stock speed actully Q9300 is the crappiest choice you can make out of all tested ones.

 

[bryanW1995]

hehe :evil: why'd you get the retail version? You know that you can overclock much better with a tuniq, right? :evil: :evil: :evil:

There is a chevy dealership across the street from my chrysler/jeep dealership. It's actualy across the 6 lane divided highway that they're turning into a major road with overpasses etc. They're almost done throwing down the crushed asphalt to make the overpass on the highway that is in between our dealerships. Last saturday we thought it would be cool to drive a couple of jeeps up the pile of asphalt that mostly looks like a future overpass. Unfortunately, the texas dept of transportation had rogue jeep dealers in mind when building said pile of asphalt, so we had moguls to contend with. LOTS of them. They were not a problem for our wrangler unlimiteds, of course. A bigger problem was the county constable's visit at 11:15 because of a "complaint". I suspect that it was from the chevy store manager...he's doubtless jealous that he can't climb the moguls...


@t2k: I like your criticism of thejian, I got too caught up in the article to realize that he didn't even read it. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that the Q9300 is the crappiest choice. It is still generally faster at 3.5 than the Q6600 at 3.6, it draws 70 watts less power at 3.5 than the Q6600 at 3.6, and, as a result, isn't nearly the wood-burning stove replacement that the Q6600 is. For many OVERCLOCKERS, myself included, the Q9300 would be a much better purchase than the Q6600. As I stated earlier, the only reasons to get a Q6600 are if you either get a great deal and don't care about heat issues or if you don't have a modern mobo (read p35 or newer) or good ram for overclocking purposes.

 

[T2k]

Well, AFAICS there are two types of use we're talking about here: OC or non-OC. Non-OC type doesn't really come here nor consider this CPU but if they do then there's my 'unless...' part - however if you OC your system you don't stop at 3.5GHz I think unless you have some cheap mobo that barely can do even 400MHz...

 

[bryanW1995]

I can count on one hand the number of people here who run their Q6600 over 3.6 24/7, and I don't know of ANY that do it on air. It's great that you're at 3.8 with your nice h20 rig. You probably won't get any benefit from getting a Q9450. markfw900 has 7 quads running f@h 24/7 and NONE run over 3.52 iirc. I would be afraid to run one over 3.2 due to noise/heat issues. well, the heat would be from the cpu, the noise would be from my wife's constant complaining about the furnace in the computer room. MOST people on MOST rigs will be much better off with a Q9300. You WON'T be better off with one so enjoy your rig.

 

[T2k]

Dunno I'm eyeballing with 12MB cache though... ;0

BTW you just reminded me to update my rig... thanks.

 

[TheJian]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What am I missing? Isnt the Q6600 for not much more a better CPU overall?

Not at all. Every single benchmark will be won by the Q9300/X3320. Period. And that's not including the fact that it runs cooler, should overclock better based on the 45nm process (assuming a board that can hit 2000+fsb) AND comes with SSE4.1.

The faster FSB, 100mhz, and core improvements make it win 7% avg in everything.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html
Q9300 vs. Q6600. Q6600 didn't win ONE test.

Look at the power consumption. Q9300 is 100mhz more. Now look at the overclocked ones at Q6600 3.6ghz vs Q9300 3.5ghz. Which you would probably need to get close to the Q9300. A full 70watts!

I might want the 3350 if I bothered though. Easier overclock without huge FSB.

But your wallet usually dictates what you do...LOL

Too bad you can't read your own link:

Although Yorkfield processors can overclock up to 4GHz (without any extreme cooling solutions involved), Core 2 Quad Q9300 cannot reach that frequency. Since the new quad-core generation started supporting 1333MHz bus, their multipliers got considerably lower. For example, Core 2 Quad Q9300 we have discussed today works with 7.5x multiplier, which doesn?t allow this processor to get past 3.4-3.5GHz because contemporary mainboards have pretty limited functionality when it comes to increasing the FSB frequency past 460-470MHz by quad-core CPUs. And this is actually even lower than the maximum frequency quad core processors from the Kentsfield family, including Core 2 Quad Q6600, can reach.

As a result, Core 2 Quad Q6600 may remain a better choice for overclocker systems, because it may run faster than Core 2 Quad Q9300 in some cases. Moreover, overclocking of previous-generation quad-core processors is a simpler procedure that doesn?t depend that much on the mainboard functionality.

So, it turns out pretty hard to make the final conclusion about the youngest quad-core Yorkfield processor. The new Core 2 Quad Q9300 is definitely a great product, but only until you get to overclocking. From the overclocking prospective we have to be more careful with our verdict and would call it an interesting but maybe not the most optimal choice.

So in other words contrary to your beliefs unless you're running your CPU at stock speed actully Q9300 is the crappiest choice you can make out of all tested ones.

Too bad you assume one result means everyone has the same result. "pretty limited" does not mean "ALWAYS LIMITED".
http://www.ocforums.com/showth...552970&highlight=q9300

Barely in the wild and already 480fsb, nothing special. One search at ocforums...LOL. Something tells me you can do better with only one result hitting 480 and only at 1.33v with no mention of anything special going on with the chipset (with an added chipset cooler for my koolance I wonder what could be reached...or any other water/chipset). It's not like he froze stuff to get there. Do your homework before you buy your board. Or better, take my advice and buy the higher multi proc. Did you miss that recommendation? I'm thinking at 3.6ghz it's pretty tough for a Q6600 to beat it unless you like room heaters or like fires. The point was is it better than Q6600 (all things considered, SSE4, power consumption, performance), not is it the best overclocker out there. Once you consider SSE4 Q6600 is dead in my mind. That has the potential to make Q6600 look like a dual core.

"By the way, we performed some additional tests and found out that the performance boost in DivX 6.7 depends a lot on the type of the encoded movie. In our test fragment featuring a battle scene Yorkfield processor was only 30% faster, however, the movie suggested by Intel, with water surface ripples being the major part of it revealed almost 70% performance boost in Yorkfield?s case."
This was in Oct 2007 (xbit Qx9650 article) for crying out loud. What happens 6 months from now? Adobe just release premiere SSE4.1 update. Wonder what will happen when people benchmark that?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3105
Nearly double performance with only a 200mhz speed advantage on a laptop (2.8ghz Penryn vs 2.6ghz merom). What's that equate to clock for clock? 75-80% faster? SSE4 will become potent. This was a sept 2007 article. Again, evidence of 2008 shaping up to be SSE4 aware and deadly to chips base on 65nm. Any more questions? :evil: :roll:

 

[Midnight Rambler]

hehe why'd you get the retail version? You know that you can overclock much better with a tuniq, right?

And I assume you know that you get a 3 yr. warranty with retail, vs. what, 90 days/1yr. max, with OEM ? And that OEM is backed by the seller, not Intel ?

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
do you really think that the extra 6mb cache will consume another 30w at load? that seems excessive to me. of course, I personally don't care about the extra $5/month, I just brought it up for the budget oc'er in all of us.

Nah, just pointing out that there's a difference, since L2 Cache makes up a large number of the total transistors. The QX9650 also has a 40 Watt improvement over the QX6850, where the former has the largest cache.

The "performance per watt" metric of any 45nm chip trounces the 65nm ones anyway.

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler

hehe why'd you get the retail version? You know that you can overclock much better with a tuniq, right?

And I assume you know that you get a 3 yr. warranty with retail, vs. what, 90 days/1yr. max, with OEM ? And that OEM is backed by the seller, not Intel ?

Overclockers who invest in something as nice as a Tuniq cooler aren't concerned about warranties. If we don't burn it out in the first 90 days, it'll last until we replace it with the next hot product.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: TheJian

Originally posted by: blackangst1
What am I missing? Isnt the Q6600 for not much more a better CPU overall?

Not at all. Every single benchmark will be won by the Q9300/X3320. Period. And that's not including the fact that it runs cooler, should overclock better based on the 45nm process (assuming a board that can hit 2000+fsb) AND comes with SSE4.1.

The faster FSB, 100mhz, and core improvements make it win 7% avg in everything.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...y/core2quad-q9300.html
Q9300 vs. Q6600. Q6600 didn't win ONE test.

Look at the power consumption. Q9300 is 100mhz more. Now look at the overclocked ones at Q6600 3.6ghz vs Q9300 3.5ghz. Which you would probably need to get close to the Q9300. A full 70watts!

I might want the 3350 if I bothered though. Easier overclock without huge FSB.

But your wallet usually dictates what you do...LOL

Too bad you can't read your own link:

Although Yorkfield processors can overclock up to 4GHz (without any extreme cooling solutions involved), Core 2 Quad Q9300 cannot reach that frequency. Since the new quad-core generation started supporting 1333MHz bus, their multipliers got considerably lower. For example, Core 2 Quad Q9300 we have discussed today works with 7.5x multiplier, which doesn?t allow this processor to get past 3.4-3.5GHz because contemporary mainboards have pretty limited functionality when it comes to increasing the FSB frequency past 460-470MHz by quad-core CPUs. And this is actually even lower than the maximum frequency quad core processors from the Kentsfield family, including Core 2 Quad Q6600, can reach.

As a result, Core 2 Quad Q6600 may remain a better choice for overclocker systems, because it may run faster than Core 2 Quad Q9300 in some cases. Moreover, overclocking of previous-generation quad-core processors is a simpler procedure that doesn?t depend that much on the mainboard functionality.

So, it turns out pretty hard to make the final conclusion about the youngest quad-core Yorkfield processor. The new Core 2 Quad Q9300 is definitely a great product, but only until you get to overclocking. From the overclocking prospective we have to be more careful with our verdict and would call it an interesting but maybe not the most optimal choice.

So in other words contrary to your beliefs unless you're running your CPU at stock speed actully Q9300 is the crappiest choice you can make out of all tested ones.

Too bad you assume one result means everyone has the same result. "pretty limited" does not mean "ALWAYS LIMITED".
http://www.ocforums.com/showth...552970&highlight=q9300

Barely in the wild and already 480fsb, nothing special. One search at ocforums...LOL. Something tells me you can do better with only one result hitting 480 and only at 1.33v with no mention of anything special going on with the chipset (with an added chipset cooler for my koolance I wonder what could be reached...or any other water/chipset). It's not like he froze stuff to get there. Do your homework before you buy your board. Or better, take my advice and buy the higher multi proc. Did you miss that recommendation? I'm thinking at 3.6ghz it's pretty tough for a Q6600 to beat it unless you like room heaters or like fires.

Emmmm, basic logic never been your forte, right? 480FSB still nothing but 3.6GHz - something that ANY Q66000 can do without any serious (chill, vapo, etc) cooling involved. Hey my primary work machine, a dwarfed dx5150 upgraded to Q6600 (w/ new miniATX mobo) at work runs at ~3.5GHz IIRC, just for the heck of it, with stock cooling.
If you have a better mobo with higher max FSB then a higher multiplier will make it EVEN BETTER. It's a fact, period. Weekend OC'ers and wannabes might think otherwise but in reality a 7.5x is a serious shortcoming and immediately excludes this CPU from any serious list.

The point was is it better than Q6600 (all things considered, SSE4, power consumption, performance), not is it the best overclocker out there. Once you consider SSE4 Q6600 is dead in my mind. That has the potential to make Q6600 look like a dual core.

The point is that "better' it might be FOR YOU but hardly for anyone else because of the lower multiplier, the less cache etc. when you look at less [/b]

Once you consider SSE4 Q6600 is dead in my mind.

You're obviously some enthusiastic young fella, with little or no knowledge, I can see now.

That has the potential to make Q6600 look like a dual core.

By this idiotic 'comment I can tell you barely know anything about SSE2 vs SSE3 or even preliminary SSE3 vs SSE4 results. t

"By the way, we performed some additional tests and found out that the performance boost in DivX 6.7 depends a lot on the type of the encoded movie. In our test fragment featuring a battle scene Yorkfield processor was only 30% faster, however, the movie suggested by Intel, with water surface ripples being the major part of it revealed almost 70% performance boost in Yorkfield?s case."
This was in Oct 2007 (xbit Qx9650 article) for crying out loud. What happens 6 months from now? Adobe just release premiere SSE4.1 update. Wonder what will happen when people benchmark that?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3105
Nearly double performance with only a 200mhz speed advantage on a laptop (2.8ghz Penryn vs 2.6ghz merom). What's that equate to clock for clock? 75-80% faster? SSE4 will become potent. This was a sept 2007 article. Again, evidence of 2008 shaping up to be SSE4 aware and deadly to chips base on 65nm. Any more questions? :evil: :roll:

Ouch, for crying out loud - you never actually read the articles you link???

Typical differences were sub-10% except few cases in Intel-supplied benches where it peaked into 30-ish.
Here's what AT wrote about itin January:

These SSE4-optimized situations are far more rare than the 1 - 8% increases we saw elsewhere, the point being that should application support develop, Penryn could do much better. Honestly though, we don?t expect a critical mass of SSE4 applications anytime soon, these sorts of things take a long time to materialize.

Ummm you just happened to skip this part, huh?. Jesus, so pathetic.
Try reading the facts instead of projecting your clueless wet dreams, seriously.

Watch the personal attacks. Consider this your only warning.

Markfw900 Anandtech Moderator.

Reply to Mod: OK, duly noted.

Good, why don't you edit and rephrase your comments before I have to.
Markfw900 Anandtech Moderator.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Foxery


Overclockers who invest in something as nice as a Tuniq cooler aren't concerned about warranties. If we don't burn it out in the first 90 days, it'll last until we replace it with the next hot product.

While it might be true statistically I really don't want to be one of the unlucky ones after, say 100+ days... AGAIN, I might add as it happened to me years ago with (I think) an AthlonXP: it died on me after ~4-5 months, runnign at some insane OC speed. That was a good lesson for me to never buy chip from tray again.

 

[Markfw]

I see comments about Q6600 always getting to 3600, but then it looks like that was edited out.

Here is my take. As you can see, I don't have ANY Q6600's @ 3.6. While most can boot into windows, and some can make it for a while appearing stable, for 24/7 operation, 3500 for the G0 stepping is close to the top. My latest is stuck at 3200, but I think its the motherboard.

As for the 9300, I agree that even at 480 fsb, thats only 3600, and they are only a tad faster, but a lot more money. I ordered a X3350 (Q9450) since I think that the 8x multiplier gives me a shot at 4 ghz with my PC-8500 memory on my DS4.

 

[Foxery]

Are you guys honestly having a heated argument about overclocking the lowest models??

9450 is the sweet spot for performance; 9300 is the budget version that gets you close. 6600 is last year's technology - and still the lowest model # in its product line. (The 6700 and 6850 exist, but come with huge price tags.)

Depending on your budget and risk tolerance, none of these are bad products.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I see comments about Q6600 always getting to 3600, but then it looks like that was edited out.

Here is my take. As you can see, I don't have ANY Q6600's @ 3.6. While most can boot into windows, and some can make it for a while appearing stable, for 24/7 operation, 3500 for the G0 stepping is close to the top. My latest is stuck at 3200, but I think its the motherboard.

Sure that's the mobo. I never heard of any problem getting to 3.6GHz - that is with G0, of course. Maybe it's just my lucky buds but I doubt it.

As for the 9300, I agree that even at 480 fsb, thats only 3600, and they are only a tad faster, but a lot more money.

I'd argue that it isn't, in fact - think about the cache sizes.

I ordered a X3350 (Q9450) since I think that the 8x multiplier gives me a shot at 4 ghz with my PC-8500 memory on my DS4.

That's what I'm thinking about - my friend just bought my few months old Q6600 G0 retail for $200... though I found X3360 for $538.87 shipped...

 

[dajeepster]

Originally posted by: Midnight Rambler

hehe why'd you get the retail version? You know that you can overclock much better with a tuniq, right?

And I assume you know that you get a 3 yr. warranty with retail, vs. what, 90 days/1yr. max, with OEM ? And that OEM is backed by the seller, not Intel ?

well... the real reason is that the heat sink/fan makes a really cool paper weight at the office ... and I get a warm fuzzy feeling in my stomach, thinking that I might actually keep this for three years

 

[EvilSponge]

Yeah it's mombo related I can hit 3.6ghz with the Abit IP35-E and my unlaped Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120 and AS5 applied.

http://bluekarmann.com/web%20pages/espcoc.html

-sponge