Yeah I know. TBH I didn't spend too much time, once I hit 3.4 and tested for stability I was quite happy with myself and left it like that for the majority of the summer, since I have to move back up north a bit to finish off school, I reset my system on Monday, and will have a new overclock on Sunday or Monday once in my new environment. I think my temps where high, as I also raised the GTLVREF Lane voltages...RAM voltages...Overclocked videocards. I am now sure if I let my AS set, as I OC'd like 4-5 days after I built my comp.
I'm hoping 3.4GHz is possible for me under 1.3v. So far, most reviews put it at 1.25v+ So I don't know what to expect. This is likely because of 45nm. Lower voltage = cooler I don't think Intel released it, but the Q9450 is believed to have a meltdown/slowdown temp of 95*C. I don't know if there is any truth to this. I'd be happy at 70 or under.
I don't think thats true at all. 95 !????? wtf If anything, the 45nm will be lower than 65nm is turns of overheating, as the production nodes are smaller and will be more effected by heat...unless my logic is flawed?
Yup the new Q9s are more prone to overheating. Hell even my XEON Q6600(and these can handle more heat than the regular ones) maxed out at 85C.
The Xeon version of the Q6600 is the X3220, if that's what you meant, and I think it may have been an ebay job. The egg sells them new for $220 though: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117127
I should have gotten that when I got my Q6600, although I wonder if it was the same price at the time. I just assumed it was to be called the QX6600, as I didn't look it up or the specs.
QX would be the extreme branding of a regular Core 2 Quad. The Xeon versions start with X and have different number coding.
Well, here's some wonderful news, my Q9450 is "stuck" at 57*C now. Idle and load. On all sensor programs. WTF??? A BIOS update did not help. Too many problems with this one. If I can't see my temps I'm not going to OC. It's going for a refund today. I'm getting a Q6600 instead like I probably should have >.<
It's just a stuck sensor. Just go by your CPU temp. Oh and I got my Xeon from a guy at overclock.net.
All the sensors are stuck. Speedfan, Coretemp, Realtemp, all showing 57*C for all cores. If it was just one of the thermistors, I wouldn't even worry. We've all seen a few bad thermistors. But I have yet to even get consistent temp readings. Before it stopped working I was getting stuck sensors on all 4 cores at different temps and loads. Sometimes they would update, other times they would stay at like idle temps even under Orthos load. One thing to note, most programs are showing the TJ.Max at 95*C or 105*C. So if it's lower than that, I'd like to know what it is. The Q9450 is sweet but I think I jumped on it too early. There are still some bugs. The Q6600 is pretty mature now, so I'll hopefully have no problems. Plus it's way cheaper too... I just want my quad
Tried that right away because, more often than not, it'll fix most problems. But I think my thermistors went bad altogether. Several reboots and cold reboots show no change. Oh well, it's already back in the packaging. Sending it back today. Newegg already confirmed that I can exchange it for a Q6600, so no real worries right now. I'm lucky I'm a patient person.
Estuansis A lot of the recent Core 2 duo and quads have bad sensors but your Tcase sensor is probably still working. Use speed fan and use the CPU temperature to gauge where you are. It should look about 5 to 10C color so what ever the reading is you are safe if when under load you add about 10C to 12C.
I'm sorry this thread hasn't updated in so long. I've since gotten a G0 Q6600 with a 1.25VID and had an excellent OC with it. The Q9450 was just out when I got it, and understandably buggy. My Q6600 has no temp sensor problems to speak of and runs surprisingly cool.
I saw the date, but I also saw no answers so I figured I'd throw one out there. My processor core is 27C idle and never over 55C underload doing anything. http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq30/hgaskins/392.jpg?t=1224444597