Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Looks like they might work on the P-6831FX lappy. Says Socket P at least...

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080313PD219.html

The Core 2 Extreme QX9300 will be manufactured at 45nm and have a core frequency of 2.53GHz. The CPU will come in a socket P package and support FSB speeds up to 1066MHz. The chip will include 12MB L2 cache and have a maximum TDP of 45W.

 

i think our FSB tops out at 800Mhz so we are out of luck there, it will downclock it. Plus that price just ruined it for me lol. Nice find though.

 

Yeah, I too, was disappointed with the price of the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 but atleast its an option down the road. Perhaps in a year after its release it will be where the T9300 is now, and won't be such a sting to our wallets.

-K

 

yeah i dont plan on upgrading for a year or so so this might drop to 600ish, then I might be interested..

 

Well it says speeds up to 1066...even if it is you can still run it at 800, it'll just be underclocked.

*edit* this by no means it's a sure deal, it might work as easy as a simple "drop in the new chip", or you might need to do a BIOS update....or it might not want to co-operate at all.

 

it should just work with these laptops, no BIOS update required.

apprently they have a different pin layout os it might not even work.

 

The multiplier isn't locked on the QX9300, so instead of 2530 MHz (9.5x 266.5 MHz), on the P-6831FX it would run at 2500 MHz (12.5x 200 MHz).

.

 

Wow that chip is going to cost almost as much as I paid for my P-6831FX I wonder if the performance would make it worth the upgrade.I suppose if you have an extra grand to burn go for it.

 

I'm definitely looking forward to low-end quad core solutions.

 

Multi-Core may be cool, but at the moment very little software utilizes them, including operating systems such as Windows.

Today at work for example, I was running some software on my dual core laptop, and it was running slow. I go and look at the Task Managers Performance Meter, and while one core was fully active, the other one wasn't. I asked myself, why couldn't an OS manage the way software is run, in that it distributes the load between the two cores? The operating system is suppose to be the manager on how hardware and software works w/each other.

It seems to me that Microsoft has to seriously utilize multi-core processors in it's next operating system. Next year we should be seeing eight core processors.

.

 

acutaly gohack windows does a good job of splitting up apps and using all cores available, but it's on the software coder to design it's apps to be multi-threaded. Windows assigns each process a core, it's on the app itself to split up it's processes, you don't want windows doing that.

And you correct that the multiplier is unlocked but so far the options for selecting those multipliers are extremely limited on laptops (the latest one is only from 2.8 to 3.0 which IIRC is a 7.0 to 7.5 adjustment, 8.0 isn't even an option)

 

Yea, I was under the impression that Windows spreads apps into different cores, and that's the end of that.

If the software you're running is a CPU hog, it's up to the one that programmed this software to program it to multithread to process info on different cores at the same time. If the programmer didn't write it like that, the whole software will just run on one core.

All other active softwares run on other cores regardless of the above, and that's thanks to Windows.