Is Qx9650 just a big waste of money?

I

IsaacMM

Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
646
Is it worth buying it just for the unlocked multiplier and a bit faster stock speed over other quads?
 
and quite the enthusiasm and hardware for overclocking.

Otherwise, it's horrendous bang for buck.
 
Like it was said above, if you can afford go for it. I just dont feel that they dont return 1K worth of perfomance for gaming/normal usage.
 
In today's age of enthusiast motherboards that offer the ability to overclock at really high FSB speeds I just don't see the need to spend that much money on a QX9XXX. You'd be better off buying one of the mainstream quads and spending the rest of the money on one of the nice overclockers boards and some nice high FSB memory.
 
Anything labeled "Extreme" in the Intel lineup is a waste.
 
take that $500-700 you might spend on the premium for these things and get better other components.
 
The 'Extreme' CPUs are very poor value for money - only marginally better than the next fastest CPU for usually twice the price or more, and the unlocked multiplier is only going to make a noticeable difference if you're very FSB-limited and very concerned with getting the highest overclock you can. If the price premium was under $250 then maybe it would be somewhat worth it, but it's too much to justify in my opinion. Q9450 is probably the best value among the 45nm quads.
 
I will let you know in a little over a hr. I am currently going from GO to this 9650 which Igot for 400. And the go will be going in my 12 year old nephews comp, now in amsterdam when I get there. Lets see how this baby overclocks and see if there is any real benefit from going from go to 9650.
 
There's simply no way to justify a Extreme Edition chip (even at $400) unless you are running phase change or going for world record runs with liquid nitrogen.

You will literally never, and I mean never, see the difference otherwise. Maybe 300Mhz difference in max OC over a non Extreme edition variant, if that. Nothing even close to noticeable.

At $1100+, well... some people have more money than sense.
 
I disagree with it being a big waste of money. If you say 1100 is a big chunk of money they its a waste. Many people consider 1100 chump change. The processor will net you the best performance stock than any other quad available. The overclocking seems to be amazing also. I would agree that its useless on air cooling since you won't be able to utilize the overclocking headroom on air.

Also I'm having a hard time getting My e8400 up past 4.2. The user above has his qx9650 at 4.4. Its the only quad I've seen that can clock higher than intels fastest dual cores. This not only matches clock for clock speed, it is an increase on frequencies, and double the cores. I think the user above has it made! He's over come the raw ghz difference between the duals and quads.

If I had the money I would buy the next generation extreme. I think its only a smart purchase when you can get the full life cycle out of the unit.
 
Well, I just installed a QX9650 in my rig this morning and so far I'm pretty happy. (I bought this one off of ebay for $650.) Reason I bought it is that my Asus board gets a little finicky with increased FSB speeds and I like it when my system is rock solid stable when it's overclocked. Anyway, I've only been messing with it for a few hours and it's running at 3.66 (11X333) with no problems withsoever and the temps are great. There's obviously a lot more head room on this chip but I don't think I'll push much beyond this because my system is already flying.

so, yeah, the chip is a little pricey but I'm happy with my purchase. I guess it depends on your perspective. If you have the disposable income, then it may not matter to you as much.
 
Cloud15x said:
I disagree with it being a big waste of money. If you say 1100 is a big chunk of money they its a waste. Many people consider 1100 chump change. The processor will net you the best performance stock than any other quad available. The overclocking seems to be amazing also. I would agree that its useless on air cooling since you won't be able to utilize the overclocking headroom on air.

Also I'm having a hard time getting My e8400 up past 4.2. The user above has his qx9650 at 4.4. Its the only quad I've seen that can clock higher than intels fastest dual cores. This not only matches clock for clock speed, it is an increase on frequencies, and double the cores. I think the user above has it made! He's over come the raw ghz difference between the duals and quads.

If I had the money I would buy the next generation extreme. I think its only a smart purchase when you can get the full life cycle out of the unit.
Click to expand...

but then i use phasechange cooling to, and that has alot to do with my OC sucess.

i personally think that if you're not running phase or water the Qx is a waste of money.

(now im gonna go try out how well my new qx9650 OC's) :D oh and i won my second one,
im not made out of money :p
 
bullen said:
i personally think that if you're not running phase or water the Qx is a waste of money.
Click to expand...

I stand behind my previous statement: phase or LN2. Water simply isn't enough -- you'll only get 200-300Mhz over a comparable locked chip on water, if that. Not at all worth the 2x+ price hike.
 
ok i guess i stand behind you, i went straigt from air to phasechange so i havn't really played with watercooling.
 
Im still standing by my guns.

If $600-1200 is a "big" amount of money, the processor is not for you. Intel extremes offer terrible price/performance.

If you can toss 1200 to a bum and not care, this is the processor for you.

Tell me something, everyone that said it was a big waste.

If Intel gave you a qx9650 and you couldnt sell it, you had to use it, would you think it was a waste? Would you not try to overclock it?
 
Cloud15x said:
Im still standing by my guns.

If $600-1200 is a "big" amount of money, the processor is not for you. Intel extremes offer terrible price/performance.

If you can toss 1200 to a bum and not care, this is the processor for you.

Tell me something, everyone that said it was a big waste.

If Intel gave you a qx9650 and you couldnt sell it, you had to use it, would you think it was a waste? Would you not try to overclock it?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's still a waste, but it's a free waste i didn't ask for so who cares.
 
Cloud15x said:
Tell me something, everyone that said it was a big waste.

If Intel gave you a qx9650 and you couldnt sell it, you had to use it, would you think it was a waste? Would you not try to overclock it?
Click to expand...

Being given something normally sold for $1200 and buying it for $1200 are two entirely different situations.

I'm running an X3220 quad under phase. I'd very much like a free unlocked quad. It's not going to happen.

The way you present your question, it's like you can't OC anything that isn't an Extreme Edition and that simply isn't true. It may be the case with Nehalem, due to the integrated memory controller architecture and internal/external clock synching system, from what little I've read on it, but that's still a good ways off.

Still, I have my quad at a very comfortable 4Ghz and could push for more with my current board, and likely much more if I got something more stable. I may swap out for whatever arrives after the 790i Ultra (I run a 780i now) but until then, I'm happy with my current setup.

The X3220 ran me ~$250. I could probably get 4.3-4.5Ghz out of it under phase even on my current board, which isn't exactly known for getting along well with quads, relatively speaking. Could I get 5Ghz out of a 45nm unlocked quad? Maybe, but not very likely, an certainly not worth the price premium to me for 500Mhz I'll never notice.

I'm working on a smaller budget than some here and readily admit that -- I'm just out of college. Notice I didn't say "many" as most at the [H], while enthusiasts, don't seem to have the kind of pocket depth required to consider $1200-1500 "chump change". Go look in Gen[H]ard and you'll notice /far/ more $500-$800 builds than $4000 builds. $1500 seems about the average for those looking to make something "serious".

My main point is, there's a point of diminishing returns, and the entire Extreme Edition line is well past it.
 
Cloud15x said:
Im still standing by my guns.

If $600-1200 is a "big" amount of money, the processor is not for you. Intel extremes offer terrible price/performance.

If you can toss 1200 to a bum and not care, this is the processor for you.

Tell me something, everyone that said it was a big waste.

If Intel gave you a qx9650 and you couldnt sell it, you had to use it, would you think it was a waste? Would you not try to overclock it?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. If money is really no object then the Extreme Edition processors are as good as they come. You can overclock them to their highest potential on virtually any motherboard of your choice. You don't even have to bother messing with FSB adjustments to do it. If you ever get an Extreme Edition CPU for free that you can't resell (such as an engineering sample) then why wouldn't you use it?
 
Is Qx9650 just a big waste of money?

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, for most peoples.
 
As has always been the case, 96% of enthusiasts can get "near enough" the same o/c with a lesser chip, that's what makes overclocking fun.

I'd rather spend my money on a killer MB, and tweak, then just plop in a chip, change the multiplyer, and call it a day. Where's the fun in that?

Depends on $$ and whether you want to visit [E]asyOCP or [H]ardOCP...
 
Mithent said:
The 'Extreme' CPUs are very poor value for money - only marginally better than the next fastest CPU for usually twice the price or more, and the unlocked multiplier is only going to make a noticeable difference if you're very FSB-limited and very concerned with getting the highest overclock you can. If the price premium was under $250 then maybe it would be somewhat worth it, but it's too much to justify in my opinion. Q9450 is probably the best value among the 45nm quads.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Besides, even with just stock cooling you can easily oc a Q9450 to WAY above a Q9650. You dont even really need a high board to doi t either.
 
Bloodgod42 said:
I agree 100%. Besides, even with just stock cooling you can easily oc a Q9450 to WAY above a Q9650. You dont even really need a high board to doi t either.
Click to expand...

sure but could you get a q9450 to 4.4Ghz prime stable ? i hardly think so. but i still agree that the bang for the buck ratio is terrible.
 
toddw said:
As has always been the case, 96% of enthusiasts can get "near enough" the same o/c with a lesser chip, that's what makes overclocking fun.

I'd rather spend my money on a killer MB, and tweak, then just plop in a chip, change the multiplyer, and call it a day. Where's the fun in that?

Depends on $$ and whether you want to visit [E]asyOCP or [H]ardOCP...
Click to expand...

dude it's was great fun in the unlocked athlon days!
 
I would not call a qx9650 a big waste of money.

In fact I think Intel got it right this time around with their CPUs (multi vs price). With the last batch of chips q6600 vs qx68** there was little reason to buy a qx68**. with a 9x multi and an average top O/C on a G0 of 3.6-3.8GHz there was no need to spend the extra cash. However this time around you will not find many mobo's out there that will do 4.2GHz with a q9450 most top out around 3.4-3.8. so there is a reason to buy a chip with an unlocked multi this time around.
 
Johnny78 said:
Well, I just installed a QX9650 in my rig this morning and so far I'm pretty happy. (I bought this one off of ebay for $650.) Reason I bought it is that my Asus board gets a little finicky with increased FSB speeds and I like it when my system is rock solid stable when it's overclocked. Anyway, I've only been messing with it for a few hours and it's running at 3.66 (11X333) with no problems withsoever and the temps are great. There's obviously a lot more head room on this chip but I don't think I'll push much beyond this because my system is already flying.

so, yeah, the chip is a little pricey but I'm happy with my purchase. I guess it depends on your perspective. If you have the disposable income, then it may not matter to you as much.
Click to expand...

I've been out of the OCing biz for a while, but wont 450x8 kick the living shit out of 333x11?
 
It's a waste of money. The true spirit of overclocking is to get the most bang out of your buck, not shoving Intel's hands down your pockets.
 
silent-circuit said:
Nope. FSB speed matters little.
Click to expand...


You, sir are wrong.

FSB does mater on current Intel systems.

You want me to drop to a lower fsb and do some memory throughput tests at 1:1 memory divider or have a lower bus speed and up the memory speed to about what it is now?

I've already done tons of tests, and this fact is also confirmed by quite a few others.

Current Intel systems have the best throughput at 1:1 memory dividers. If you up the memory speed above 1:1, it gives very little gains in memory throughput.

However, if you up the bus speed and keep the memory at 1:1, you get a very good increase in memory throughput.

If you only run programs that fit in the on-die cache, then no, you won't see any increase in speed. However, if you run real programs that use actual system memory, you will see an increase in speed.
 
cyclone3d said:
You, sir are wrong.

FSB does mater on current Intel systems.

You want me to drop to a lower fsb and do some memory throughput tests at 1:1 memory divider or have a lower bus speed and up the memory speed to about what it is now?

I've already done tons of tests, and this fact is also confirmed by quite a few others.

Current Intel systems have the best throughput at 1:1 memory dividers. If you up the memory speed above 1:1, it gives very little gains in memory throughput.

However, if you up the bus speed and keep the memory at 1:1, you get a very good increase in memory throughput.

If you only run programs that fit in the on-die cache, then no, you won't see any increase in speed. However, if you run real programs that use actual system memory, you will see an increase in speed.
Click to expand...

I said "matters little" -- as in, not much. Yes, I am aware 1:1 is ideal, you're preaching to the choir there. Still, at the end of the day all that's likely to change are some throughput numbers, and not too much else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top