PDA

View Full Version : 9 series quad cores



creativecontrol
04-25-2008, 07:49 AM
Has anyone tried the 9 series intel quad cores and compared then to the 6 series? I know they had a new "fast divider" and SSE4. Just curious if it made any difference in rendering at the same clock speed?

tyrot
04-25-2008, 10:15 AM
dear cc

can i also add this thread ..."has anyone tried SKULLTRAIL mobo? with LW...i have read mixed results...?"

at least this can be an extensive quad CPU thread.

Best

Hopper
04-25-2008, 05:02 PM
We compared a new non-OC'd QX9775 on a nVidia 790i Ultra SLI mobo to the Q6600 OC'd to 3.6GHz on the same board, and the Q6600 beat the snot out of it. The 6600 also stayed at about 39-42c while blazing full speed for 10 minutes. (the 9775 ran at 53c using the drystone test for only 3 minutes)

Bang for your buck - Q6600 hands down.

We haven't OC'd the 9775 yet, but I'll bet it screams.

Setup:
nVidia 790i Ultra SLI mobo
Crucial 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600 (using 7-7-7-24 profile)
Q6600 (set at C0)
nVidia GX2
4 RAID 0+1 Raptor 10K 150GB drives

I think the total bill without case, monitor and accessories was around $1950 or so (give or take $100).

I'll be using the same CPU/board combo at home, but with the 8800GTX and only 2GB RAM to start (which is significantly cheaper).

ericsmith
04-25-2008, 09:44 PM
I don't have any personal experience with the 6 series, but I've got a 9650 and I'm very pleased with it.

Just today I stepped it up from 3.0 ghz to 3.5 ghz just by upping the multiplier 9 to 10.5. I didn't touch the bus speed or voltages.

With a thermal electric cooling system it runs at this speed at around 30C under full load.

I've seen reports on the web of serious overclockers getting this chip up to 5 ghz.

Eric

ericsmith
04-25-2008, 09:54 PM
By the way, here's a rundown of the system:

Coolermaster Cosmos case
Coolermaster 600 watt power supply
ASUS rampage formula mobo
intel quad core 9650 (3.0 ghz)
thermal electric cooling system
2 gigs ram
Geforce 8800gt 512 megs
160 gig primary drive + 500 gig data drive

All for $2,600 including sales tax and shipping.

Eric

Oedo 808
04-26-2008, 12:03 AM
I was wondering about this too, the only 9 series within my budget is the 9450, but that's not supposed to be too great with overclocking.

The Xeon X3350/3360 are supposed to be much better and being socket 775 I might go for one of these. I'd like to go for a board that could support dual processors, but the cost of that "Skulltrail" is sick!

And besides I don't think it even supports DDR, only FBDIMM.

If you're thinking about getting something more powerful than a Q6600, but don't have a massive budget (like me), then OCing a X3350 might be the way to go. I'm sure I saw someone who had a signature with one @ 4GHz.

I'm no expert though so I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say, also if anyone knows if there is anyway to run a dual Xeon setup (socket 775) on a board that also supports DDR3 and that doesn't cost 300/$600, maybe half that.

I've no idea about server setups, if the type I described even exist, or if they are practical for an individual, but that would be an ideal setup from where I'm standing :thumbsup:

If a little hopeful. :D

Cheers.

ericsmith
04-26-2008, 12:30 AM
I'm not exactly an expert either, but I did do some research on dual quad core setups.

What I found with most dual xeon mobos is that they seemed more targeted to servers than workstations. In other words, they looked pretty utilitarian, and I wasn't sure they would be the best choice for a graphics/3d workstation.

The other thing to consider is that there are still so many processes that don't take advantage of multithreading yet. So for much of the stuff we do, 8 cores is kind of a waste of resources. Some would say the same of 4 cores, but to me, it seemed to strike the right balance for rendering vs. all the other stuff.

If the 9650 is out of your budget, then from what I've read, the Q6600 sounds like a solid choice.

Eric

Oedo 808
04-26-2008, 01:51 AM
Thanks for the advice, the Q6600 is indeed a very attractive proposition.

I suppose someone might think running a dual Xeon system was a bit excessive for someone who couldn't push to the 9650, but I was going on the assumption (and hope) that if the were such a board, that I could run with a single Xeon for now, which would leave (assuming the prices drop) a cheap and easy way to give my system a bit of a boost in a year or two. But as you say that may not be a realistic option.

Likewise with DDR3, I just think that it won't be too long before we see the price of these taking a significant drop, I think the price has moved steadily downward this year already, so if I'm going to invest in a new board, I want it to be a DDR3 one. I can make do with 2GB for now.

That said it may still be a Q6600 DDR2 system for me, just weighing up the options though, because I'm not one to update their system every few months.

Ah well, on with the research!

Cheers.

Ratboy
04-26-2008, 07:50 AM
I'm not exactly an expert either, but I did do some research on dual quad core setups.

What I found with most dual xeon mobos is that they seemed more targeted to servers than workstations. In other words, they looked pretty utilitarian, and I wasn't sure they would be the best choice for a graphics/3d workstation.


Most of them are, but I've been using this one with a pair of X5335s, and it's been fantastic so far.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182130

philippe
04-26-2008, 09:13 AM
xeon 5345s here on a supermicro X7DAE+ :thumbsup:with 8gb DDR2 (on xp64), my lightwave is happy !!:D

Oedo 808
04-26-2008, 09:44 AM
A little too extravagent for me at the moment, especially once the VAT man gets a hold of it, I'll probably just get a single processor setup for now... and clock the nuts of it!:D

I'll definately consider these setups for the future though, glad to hear they're doing the job. Enjoy those render times! :thumbsup:

We-Co
04-26-2008, 12:38 PM
I still want to know if it's worth getting a 8-core machine, or stick with a 4. Render time is great with a Q6600, but with a Xeon on a skulltrail I'm thinking it would blaze.

creativecontrol
04-26-2008, 03:06 PM
I was mostly curious if the 9 series was more efficient at the same clock rate than the 6 series or not.

I have the 6600 right now and love it. Just curious about the 9's.

ericsmith
04-26-2008, 03:17 PM
At the same clock rate, the 9 series is just a tiny bit faster, but the difference is probably negligable.

The key benefit of the 9 series is the fact that it uses significantly less power (except for the 9775, which uses about the same amount as the 6850).

This is of course good for the electric bill, but the real point is that less power consumption means less heat, and that means better potential for overclocking.

Eric

tyrot
04-26-2008, 03:41 PM
dear overclockers

as far as i read from an overclock portal, new nehalem cpus wont be Overclock friendly. Probably intel is gonna kill our shortcut to hi-end cpus with low-ends. SO we might start buying some damn cheap 6600s..

Best

creativecontrol
04-28-2008, 10:44 AM
At the same clock rate, the 9 series is just a tiny bit faster, but the difference is probably negligable.

The key benefit of the 9 series is the fact that it uses significantly less power (except for the 9775, which uses about the same amount as the 6850).

This is of course good for the electric bill, but the real point is that less power consumption means less heat, and that means better potential for overclocking.

Eric

Hey, thanks for the info!

StereoMike
04-28-2008, 03:19 PM
My vote is on Tyrots comment. The companies tend to lock systems up and shut them away from the customer, not vice versa. Someone remember Nvidias 6800gt and ultra? You were able to make it a full quadro performance wise (did so with mine). Starting with the 7 series this opportunity was gone.
If companies see a way to prevent users making their 150$ cpu a 400$ cpu, they will do it.

mike