Easy overclocking of the Killer Notebooks Nagamaki

Today I saw at the GoG that the Q9200 processor in the new Killer Notebooks BIOS over clocks to 2.9 Gigahertz. The instructions to do so were very complete.

 

The Q9200 doesn't overclock.

 

It doesn't " Next Whitebook Guru?"

Somebody better tell this chip that.

​

 

Im sure someone could correct me if I were wrong, but the Q9200 that you are referring to is a Desktop CPU. As far as I know, the only Quad-core CPU that is going to overclock is the QX9300, and that's a multiplier OC. The Q9200 is a yorkfield, not a penryn..and it will not fit in a socket-p MOBO. Next question?

 

Sure, I will correct you.

• The Q9200 I am referring to, is the Q9200 I am referring to, not whatever you are talking about
• This is in my notebook so unless he modded the socket, it DOES fit
• It overclocks with the Killer Notebooks BIOS
• This is a 2.4 Ghz CPU that is beating your 3.06 GHz x9100 in 3D06Marks

It's all right there in the image if you click it you can see the larger version.

 

I can't find anything about q9200 in intel website. if you could plz tell me.

 

1st post you saw at the GoG about Q9200 but now you say it from your laptop and show your result. How can you do that? you build your system within 10 hours so you can't do it if you doesn't the system builder.
or you are system builder right?

 

Intel decided not to release the notebook version q9200 as a retail chip, however it is probably available from Chinese/Taiwan sources in engineering sample form.

 

no..the q9200 is a mobile chip as well... just like the q9100 & q9300. the qx9300 is the extreme edition of the mobile quad cores. the only one being multiplier over clock able.

all these chips are over clock able via front side bus software

 

This is odd. The Q9200 isn't an Extreme model chip (meaning as you suggested, multipliers are not unlocked as opposed to the extreme version), yet 3dmark reads it as an Extreme processor according to RG's screenshot under where it says CPU...

 

i think it has something to do with the internal naming scheme...

if you look..they had these same chips in line for desktop models then sort of skipped on by them. then next thing you know...they are mobile chips.... (speculation of course)

 

John,

The q9200 running at the 2.9 is multiplier overclocked with the new bios not FSB overclocked.

So your facts are a little skewed.

 

the q9200 in question is an ES hence the unlocked multiplier

 

yeah, i was going under it being an oem and not an es. my bad, i stand corrected.

 

This is expected and nothing extraordinary. As I mentioned before, having 2 more cores gives you a 800-1000 pt boost in 3dmark 06 over a dual core CPU of the same clock frequency/speed. This diagram explains it via graphing. For easier reference, compare the results of the Q6600 and the E6600; both operate at 2.4ghz, but the former is a quad core while the latter is a dual core CPU.

 

Ah yes, the new BIOS. I remember RobM from RKC mentioning the new BIOS. This is why I decided to wait for the QX9300 after hearing that the new BIOS can multiply it to operate at 3.33ghz. Sick!

 

I have had this laptop for a while. I haven't posted because there are so many people that want to accuse and flame you immediately on this forum.

I originally ordered this system with a x9100 but after reading all the posts about the quad core I got "the bug". I called and Killer offered me a deal I couldn't refuse. At the time he said it could go to 2.67 Ghz so I thought it was a pretty good deal. He said he was working on higher clocks and now, at 2.93 I call it a bargain, the best I ever had.

I like multiplier unlocked

 

Not bursting your bubble but you cant overclock to 3.3 yet. The 12.5 multiplier is bugged still.

But shortly they should have a htofix for it. Just a heads up =)

 

Well, by the time I finish paying off my credit card and other bills and save enough for a QX9300, that hotfix would probably be a thing of the past

 

i didn't know the q9200 had a 280mhz bus speed?????
thought it was either 266 or 333 when using a multiplier over clock?

 

So you got your machine back john ? .

 

yeah quad, got it back today

 

Ok..if you "Saw it in the GoG".. and posted "Someone elses scores" then how is it now this is your rig? And people getting flamed? For what? Posting 3dmark scores? And 3dmark says that's an "Extreme Processor" which the q9200(if it ever existed), would be a q x9200. Just like the x9100, and q x9300. Anyhow.. Nice try.

 

He has a engineering sample of the q9200 which has an unlocked multiplier. It doesnt have to be a qx to be overclocked. It just needs an unlocked multiplier.

As much as I hate to stick up for him because he doesnt know how to act, hes not lying.

And RunningGunner you said "This is a 2.4 Ghz CPU that is beating your 3.06 GHz x9100 in 3D06Marks" If you look at the picture its oced to 3.076 (thats what it says in everest). Yes its a 2.4 stock, but its still oced so what are you trying to say? You beat his score with a higher clocked cpu? Last time I checked, 3.076>3.06.

 

Yes but Ewrecked was OCed to 3.56 on his best run.. check his sig.

 

yes, but he also stated that as well....

 

You might wanna avoid getting past the swearfilter E-wrecked. I got an infraction when i said bull**** like how you said it.

Nice scores,Running Gunner. Temps please.

 

Not trying to sidetrack this thread but can someone help me out with the logic of OC'ing your proc?

Why would you buy a 2.5 GHz proc and OC it to 3.0 GHz when you can get one at 3.0? Wouldn't that mean the original 3.0 proc would runner better, longer and cooler? Is this simply a cost saving move? What are the major performance benifits of OC'ing a 2.5 GHz proc to 3.0 GHz over a proc designed to run at 3.0.

I thought OC'ing your GPUs and CPUs shortened their lifespan so wouldn't it be more cost effective to just get the original 3.0 Proc because it will last longer?

I'm just trying to understand this OC thing. It looks more as a cost saving method then a performance method.

 

..............

People who buy the QX 9300 and overclocking it to 3GHZ are going for performance since it is already the quickest and the most expensive quad core mobile processor. people overclocking the Q9200 to 2.9 ghz are doing it to save money.

There is no mobile quadcore processor with a stock clock of 3ghz. you are thinking about a dualcore x9100

 

I was just using 3.0 as a general reference.

So I guess it depends on the proc. If you OC the most powerful proc on the market, then you're trying to get more out of it. If you OC a mid-level proc, then you are trying to save a few pennies.

But does OCing your proc shorten it's lifespan or not?

 

Where in the SS it says Q9200 (other than the one at the top in red)? All I see clock speeds and extreme cpu stuff but no model number. Can anybody direct me to the right location?

 

In my opinion, a moderate overclock does not effect your cpu's lifespan in a way that matters. I've been overclocking my components for a little more than a decade with only 1 cpu failure (and that may of been a crushed core from installing the heat sink to tight). What I'm trying to say is that a cpu that is stock clocked, may last 15 years or so... OC'ing will reduce that lifespan to 10 years. But you'll be obsolite in 4, so it doesn't really matter. Also, modern cpu's have a ton of built in safegaurds that keep it from burning up. They'll throttle down their clocks as temps go up. They have sensors, and a ton of information available so you can safely overclock. GPU's are similar.

However, most notebooks are oc'd using the front side bus. Done this way, a lot of other components end up overclocked. Most of those components do not have any safeguards, sensors, or tech sheets to let you know you're pushing it to far. So you run that risk of burning out something on the mobo or another component.

 

I didnt even look at that. Thanks for pointing it out. Its still a weird comparison since he states the stock speeds but I understand what he was meaning now.

 

Interesting, if you look at lavalys at Core 3 and 4, they are at stock speeds while cores 1 and 2 are overclocked.

 

Thanks MightyAA for the info.

I think I'll leave OC'ing to the experts but as for me doing it by myself, don't think so.

 

Got a few more benchmarks of my Q9200...
This over clocking is kind of fun.