QX9300 Benchmarks (M17)

what up e! i see ya iphone pimp!

 

So I'm tempted to the get the QX9300. What does it score at 3.33Ghz VS the X9100 at 3.33Ghz?

 

Yo.. I'm thrashed at some late night spot that won't let me smoke inside, dropping a line on NBR. Happy New Years!

 

happy new years gentlemen!

 

Happy new years!

 

they cost about same, get the qx9300. you can't go wrong..just check it out in action here.

3870m x2 3dmark06 scores

hahahaha, take your butt out side for smoking!

 

According to your link, the QX9300 scores nearly 2K more marks at 3.33Ghz as does the X9100 at 3.33Ghz.

Anyone wanna buy an X9100 ES, lol?

 

lol

they both have their good points, but getting closer to future proofing would be the quad.

i just ran a few more video editing test against some desktop dual cores...they we're not happy to see a laptop beating their machines..to say the least....lol

 

on my computer properties it only shoes q9300 also. but will show qx9300 on certain programs including 3dmark06. but the bottom line is that, it truly is a qx9300. most of the time it will say intel core 2 extreme q9300, meaning, instead of putting the "x" with the q9300 it just states the processor as an extreme. if you already didn't know, the "x" in the qx9300 means extreme, and "q" meaning quad, of course.

 

no way you will find the qx9300 for the same price as the x9100 unless they are OVERCHARGING seriously for the x9100

 

i was talking more along the lines of retail/oem and not es.
qx9300 link

x9100 link

and they dropped the price a little on the x9100. they retail for 850.00 they use to be 1k. same time the qx9300 came out and it was like a few dollars more...about 1050.00 or something like that. e-wrecked bought his for 1k brand new if im not mistaken.

 

These retail chips ain't cheap. And they depreciate faster than a car

 

I've had very good stability with the X9100 ES, so I would probably get the QX9300 ES or QS chips. I know my X9100 would go quick on Ebay, just a matter of me pulling the trigger on the endeavor.

 

alright so i was attempting to flash the bios last night, got down to dos and when i got to g:\bios folder and hit dir there was p.bat. i type p.bat and i get an error saying that the 16bit program isn't compatible with 64bit windows. hmmm what now?

 

you have to flash it from the DOS boot menu using a DOS bootable disk.

 

okay 14801 3dmark06 @3.05Ghz...hmmm not bad i guess i'm gonna try a few more in an attempt to get over 15k and then try it at 3.3ghz and see what i get. i'm still trying to get 14k+ @default 2.53ghz. i gotta figure out how you guys get high scores @ defaults.

 

you might want to ask what they mean by default shiznittle....

default can mean gpu/cpu default or running 3dmark at default settings.

 

ok so what kind of scores are people getting @ default 3dmark06 settings and w/ NO OCing, because my bests are 137** 3dmark06. i've gotten that a few times consistently. so i check e-wrecked's signature and "@ default" he got 15815 3dmark06. E, by "@ default", do you mean default 3dmark06 settings, no bios flash and OC? or what?

 

hey u guys think different physX versions affect 3dmark06? cause i've noticed that i'm getting different scores between default ageia physX ver. 7.***, nvidia phsx ver. 8.09, and nvidia phsx ver. 8.11. i'm getting better results w/ 8.09 for some reason.

 

what cpu and gpu temps do i need to stay away from? inbetween 3dmark06 tests, the screen gives me a chance for a few seconds to check out the desktop and cpu-z and etc while 3dmark06 is switching tests. all 4 cores are in the 60s degC while the gpus on the other hand, 1 is constantly in the 60s and the other in the 70s, also of course in degCelcius. are those temps too high, while running 3dmark06? This is @ 3.3ghz btw.

 

what is you max cpu temp showing after running 3dmark? i think mine was around 65 last time i did it. GPU's can get up to 80 for me, but not much higher. im thinking of getting the qx9300.

 

yea, i cant seem to be able to finish a 3dmark06 run @3.3 ghz. i've attempted 3 times. twice the program just stopped with an error, and another time i ended up getting blue screen w/ memory dumps. i'm guessing my temps are too high?

 

are you using FSB tweaks or ocz bios?

 

just ocz bios flash. my last run @ 3.0 ghz was 14996 3dmark06 score. now at 3.3 ghz, i cant seem to finish a run. may be unstable at these speeds. i see the x9000 folks going 3.3 ghz, maybe qx9300 shouldn't go past 3.0ghz? idk

 

isn't there a .028 bios floating around?

 

i was just reading that there is a new version, im looking for it now. people have gotten the qx9300 up to 3.5 with no problems. not sure why your having a problem though.

 

Yea.. It's unstable cause of power requirements. You need to RMclock it or something to adjust voltage. There's a way to run 3.3 but I don't have a qx to test with.

 

dropping the voltage a bit will help lower your idle temps as well as running temps.

 

what up E. hows the hangover bud...lol

 

well, unstable or not, i got it to finish a run. got 15540 @ 3.3ghz, hmmm i dont know if i'm just greedy or not but i want 16k at these speeds. not really satisfied.

and for your question earlier axman, my cpu temps after the run, all 4 cores were at about 65-67 degC. the gpus, one ranged from 50s-60s and the other from 60s-70s may have seen it at 80 at one point i thinkk...or i thought i did, if so it was at 80 then quickly back down to 70 while 3dmark06 was switching tests.

 

what was the highest temp you saw on that run?

 

lol@ you guys have created a monster...lol

 

sorry ax, check my previous reply, i had to editted it and when i was done u guys had posted your replies.

 

now set your best runs to public so they show to the rest of the world...

 

thats not bad for cpu temps, about average from what ive been seeing. GPU temps sound the same as what im seeing.

 

okay so i've gotten it to finish a few times @ 3.3 ghz, now to my next task...3dmark vantage which hasn't been working for me for a couple days now. really dont know whats up with that program, but i'm gonna get to the bottom of this.

 

Nice run! I started out OCing the same way as you are. No clue about the joys, excitement, and addictiveness. And yes, a monster has been created! So let's see ya hit 17k! Oh, go to the ocz forum and read up on my overclocking guide; now you gotta OC the GPUs

 

thx E, yea man i appreiciate it. wouldn't have been able to do it w/o your ocz bios flash thread. but yea i'll check out your OC guides, i'm gonna take it slow for now. my bios flash experience i had earlier almost broke my heart. lol, i've only had this machine for a week and i've already bricked it? wow, but thx to john i figured it out.

 

well, my attempts of overcoming my vantage problems continues. really pissing me off. but good news, i broke 16k @ 3.3ghz.

 

i got vantage to run once. but i didnt get an overall score. not sure why.

http://service.futuremark.com/home.action?resultId=647753&resultType=19

 

hey E, i want to take a hack at RMclock. i've read a few threads about different problems running on 64bit vista but also found programs to go around it and have it work...so now my question is for my system to run 3.3 more stable, am i going to step up or down the voltages?

 

you'll want to go down i believe. It will also help you run much cooler. I oc'd my t9400 to 2.85 and got a 132xx on several runs. i got it all the way up to 3.1 but it didnt yeild much of a higher score than at 2.85. I feel 2.85 is the most stable on this chip. let me know how rmclock works for you. i was thinking about doing that. would be nice if OCZ had voltages in bios settings.

 

I am waiting for Intel's CPU refresh in April 09. None of the Core 2 Quads or Core 2 Extremes QX9300 are very impressive at all for the price. For performance and Watt usage heatoutput.

And by the time April 09 rolls around I might just decide to wait for the i7 Core so it can run circles around these QX9300.

I am hoping for 32nm but 45nm is ok since its so much faster and stas much cooler.

 

well i7 is gonna need a whole new mobo. which will be nice. but since we have this already, we have to do with whats available.

 

okay stepping down the voltages, is that going to hinder any performances? because i've seemed to notice that i've been getting higher scores when the fan is going berserk, which in turn means that the cpu and/or gpus are really turning it up a notch, thus the higher score output. so if turning the voltages down a notch is going to clamper the high end performance of my machine i dont think i want to use this program then.

i want 3dmark06 and 3dmark vantage to work @ 3.3ghz at a more consistent level w/o having to sacrifice any power. although, my vantage problems seems to be program based since the last time i had it work was before i started installing all my games and different programs onto this bad boy.

 

well if you lower the voltages without going to low you'll be fine. You'll also run your processor several degrees cool. i read some people can get as much as 20 degrees cooler. just go in small increments and check for stability.

 

No, undervolting should not hinder performance. I have seen undervolt cpu desktops and if it is well done, it should lower temperatures without sacrificing performance.

However I dont know if undervolted gpus maintain the stability/performance.

 

its trickier with gpus i believe

 

Nice thread Shznittle. I will be waiting for more results since I have the same config coming in the next days.

And I want to do the same experiments...

 

I'm new in this Forum