• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Coee 2 Quad 9550 Yorkfield

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

JohnBoy55

Registered
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
I just purchased A Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83 GHz.from Tiger Direct because they lowered the price fron $269.99 to $219.99 which I thought was a good deal, plus the fact I wanted to upgrade my 775 system to streatch it for another year or two, before upgrading to a I-7 system.

But hear's what caught my eye. I swung over to New Egg's site and was reading their reviews on this chip, and on guy wrote in his review their are two versions of the chip in the Q9550.

He says on the side of the box one version is C1 Stepping with the codes SLAWA; the the other version on the side of the box is E0 Stepping with the codes SLB8V, and claims this E0 Stepping Version is better for over clocking for this particular Q9550.

Now you really don't know which version your going to get until you receive it, but my question to all of you out there with a Q9550; Is their any facts, truth, or data backing this up, between a E0 Stepping or a C1 Stepping in this Q9550 chip. I'm curious to know if this is true. Thanks!!
 

bing

Low Profile Senior
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Location
Indonesia
From results throughout the internet, E0 is better overclocker than C1.

Also from technical point of view, E0 is newer revision than C1, hence it carries some bug fixes and exhancement over C1, Intel called it steppings, although these are not major bugs that you should worry about.
 

hankafyin

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
I have the EO stepping and am overclocked to 3.6 on stock voltage, 24/7. I have heard that the C1 will do 3.6 also. It really depends on the VID of the chip you got. You will most likely get a EO stepping since the stock of C1's should have been moved by now. I have a post here "Replaced E6880 with a Q9950" with a link to a screen shot if you want to take a look.

Gigabyte GA-P35C-UD3R rev 2.1 F12
Q9550 @3.6 (424x8.5) [auto]
G. Skil 8 GB 6400 (4x2 GB) 4-4-4-12 2.0v 1:1
AC Freezer 7 Pro heatsink
PNY 9800 GT 1 GB (675/975/1675)
Avermedia G2 Combo TV tuner
2 WD Cavier blue 320 GB HHD
BFG 650 watt PSU
Enermax Chakra Case

Here's a link to a screenshot if you are interested.

http://s634.photobucket.com/albums/uu70/henrystrawn/?action=view&current=Q955036.png
 

pastorx

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
i have a e0 stepping 9550 clocked in at 3.93 and have had it above 4.02 on my maximus formula II board which is a great board for the overclocker . my core voltage is at 1.2635 and i dont have any trouble with heat or stability . for the money this is a great chipset. here's some #'s to help ypu get there

fsb 450
multi 8.5
v vore 1.2635
nb v 1.3
pll 1.56
vtt 1.24
llc enabled
vid 1.21250

and that should get you to 3.9 stable , or at least it did for me.
good luck !
 

baris_

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Yay, I've got an E0. Although I couldn't overclock with this motherboard so I bought a new one to see how far I can overclock! That's a very low vcore for 3,83 pastorx. I bet you could oc much further if you increased that vcore of yours.
 

dito

Member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Location
Vacaville, CA
i have three Q9550. one is C1 and it's crap! i think i got it to 3.4, maybe 3.6. The other two are E0's and those are at 3.8 and 4.0 stable. I got the C1 from newegg, which made me go to microcenter 1.5 hrs away for the other 2 Q9550's...
 

baris_

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
i have three Q9550. one is C1 and it's crap! i think i got it to 3.4, maybe 3.6. The other two are E0's and those are at 3.8 and 4.0 stable. I got the C1 from newegg, which made me go to microcenter 1.5 hrs away for the other 2 Q9550's...

That's a large difference and reason enough to want an E0.
 

jason4207

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Location
Concord, NC
E0's OC better, run cooler, and require less voltage.

I'm also running at 4GHz on my Q9550.

471x8.5 @ 1.256v

The reason I'm not OC'd further (and probably why pastorx is as well) is that there is a FSB limitation. The CPU has more top freq overhead in it, but the FSB holds it back, and without a higher multiplier you are stuck. Any higher FSB speed and I can't pass Prime95-large-fft. Some folks have had luck getting 500FSB or higher, but I tend to doubt they have stability that I would trust. Most folks don't stress test the FSB like I do. FSB instability is harder to detect and nail down. There are golden chips, though, and golden mobos that can do awesome things. For the most part if you want more than 4GHz 24/7 you should get the Q9650 for the extra 0.5 multi.

What kind of mobo do you have? P45's tend to top out around 475FSB w/ 45nm quads, and P35/X38/X48's tend to top out at 460FSB for 24/7 stability.
 

pastorx

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
yeah jason's right anything past 460 - 470 is very hard to make stable , my personal fastest stable setup was 4.02 . i could hit 4.2 and it would boot into windows and run but was severly unstable . i benchmarked my machine at 3.93 with my 5770 and 8 gig of ram , i scored 19,100 and some change . in 3dmark06 that is a very good score. i'm trying right now to see if i can push it further and get stability but it's not looking good , 4.02 i think is probably the max . but you should not be depressed about that at all , that's a 39% overclock
 

sobe

Unscathed Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
The reason I'm not OC'd further (and probably why pastorx is as well) is that there is a FSB limitation. The CPU has more top freq overhead in it, but the FSB holds it back, and without a higher multiplier you are stuck. Any higher FSB speed and I can't pass Prime95-large-fft. Some folks have had luck getting 500FSB or higher, but I tend to doubt they have stability that I would trust. Most folks don't stress test the FSB like I do. FSB instability is harder to detect and nail down. There are golden chips, though, and golden mobos that can do awesome things.

Can't say my chip is golden, but I run mine at 500FSB with no issue at all. Had to bump the vcore from 1.22 to 1.30 though, anything below 1.3 vcore and a core would fail in Prime95.


So long as you get an E0, you are almost guaranteed 3.4GHz - 3.6GHz on stock volts.
 
Last edited:

sobe

Unscathed Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
I just wanted the higher rated FSB :p If the memory can take it, why not.
 

jason4207

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2005
Location
Concord, NC
I couldn't go any higher than 475FSB even w/ the 6x multi and not fail large-fft at some point. I went back down to 471 since I could tighten up the NB timings more there, and run my 4x1GB RAM faster (5:6 1132MHz); and of course get over the 4GHz hump! I could bench at 495FSBx8.5, though. :D
 

pastorx

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
well back to the question at hand , yes there is a difference . c1 stepping is going to go mid 3's stable and a e0 stepping is going to get high 3's to a very low 4 . and to be truthfull anything past like 3.2 - 3.3 your not visually going to see a difference for that matter it's all number bluffing for benchmark numbers ! that's it !
 

jivetrky

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Location
Lake Village, IN 46349
I ran my E0 stepping Q9550 24/7 at 471x8.5 on my IX38 Quad GT. I did run benches at 482 fsb. I managed 23k in 3DMark06 with 5770s xfire. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=13265408 Jason is right that you'll probably hit a fsb wall first. That low 8.5 multi is a definite drawback. Your doing good if you can get one to 4GHz stable.

I was browsing looking for ideas and came upon this. With this exact board (Bought it from Doc), MY E0 Q9550 (Not the same as Docs) comes up with the same results. 471 stable, 482 windows bootable/benchable. Although I have to run a little higher voltage; 1.38 right now. Hoping to narrow that down a bit, but that may just be it's spot.



Anywho way to bump an old thread, jivetrky! :D



EDIT: BTW, this chip was also max stable at 471FSB on my EP45-UD3P, so it seems to be the chip, not just the board. Although that board wouldn't even boot windows stable at any higher than 471. (Reason for me changing boards was that my EP45-UD3P wasn't stable at 471 with my 4x2GB of RAM. This board seems to be fine with it. :))