It's not very rare, but it's a decent find. I think most people aim to get the Penryn versions (QX9650, etc.) so the Conroe ones aren't as sought after.

Quite common actually, worth maybe $15. It doesn't matter though because it's still a lucky find among the sea of Celeron Ds and Core 2 Duos so not bad at all!

brian105 wrote on 2024-04-10, 16:00:

It's not very rare, but it's a decent find. I think most people aim to get the Penryn versions (QX9650, etc.) so the Conroe ones aren't as sought after.

The qx9650 is probably one of my dream computer parts, tagt chip has some serious power.

Also how are you able to add the machines you have under each comment you make? Ive seen other people do it but haven’t figured out if its a feature or just copy paste.

It's funny, because I have both a QX9650 and a QX6700, and I got them both for free.

The Socket 771 Xeons which are equivalent to Q9650 (the multiplier-locked version of QX9650) are frequently available much cheaper and can run on some Socket 775 boards with simple(?) mods.

QX6700 has early stepping which, on average, has less overclocking headroom. Outside of limited scenarios when you can't overclock FSB, regular Q6600 with G0 stepping is more preferable. QX6850 is other matter and pretty decent.

brian105 wrote on 2024-04-10, 16:00:

It's not very rare, but it's a decent find. I think most people aim to get the Penryn versions (QX9650, etc.) so the Conroe ones aren't as sought after.

One nice thing with the Penryns is that they have dramatically lower idle power consumption. So if you have a motherboard that can take the 45nm chips, that's a good reason to go that route...

(It's sad, in a way - despite Conroe's historical significance, the Conroe family CPUs are not IMO that collectible...)

The Kentsfield is nice for 1066 QDR FSB chipsets like i965 derivates and i975. The Q6700 with G0 stepping and 95W TDP makes the QX6700 with B3 stepping and 130W somehow obsolete.

The best choice for 1066 QDR FSB systems would be the QX6800 (G0 stepping). So the QX6700 has currently much lower pricing than QX6800 (the most collectible Kentsfield). The QX6850 needs a Board with 1333er FSB. Such Boards support the faster Yorkfield cores, which makes the QX6850 (3000 MHz) less desireable than the QX6800 (2933MHz).

All QX CPUs have unlocked multiplier, so difference in FSB is irrelevant.

Would a Q9650 be any good? I hear they don’t run as hot.

It has the same TDP - 130w.

zuldan wrote on 2024-04-17, 08:24:

Would a Q9650 be any good? I hear they don’t run as hot.

Q9650 or QX9650? The Q9650 is a 95W TDP...

My main XP rig has a slightly slower Xeon X3320 I scored for free (as a bonus both the Asus P5KPL and P5N-D boards recognise the CPU without any mods)
I'll admit I get a kick from seeing Xeon on the screen during boot. I suspect it would be the same seeing extreme.
Sure I could upgrade cheaply to a faster boring mainstream CPU but all my games run fine and I'll loose that coolness factor.
Much like your SLI

Hard to believe Core 2 Quads are already so old.

For me it was just a few upgrades ago that I was using one...

I had an E6750, then a Q9550, sold that and bought a 2500K in 2011, used that for 8 years and bought a Ryzen 5 3600, then a few years later got a 5800X3D.

I wonder how far the Q9550 would have gotten me compared to the 2500K. 😀

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-04-18, 05:03:

I wonder how far the Q9550 would have gotten me compared to the 2500K. 😀

I jumped from Q9550 to Haswell Xeon E3-1230 v3 in 2014 which I'm still using as my main rig.

I feel like I could have stayed with Q9550 far longer and been mostly fine, only recently opening multiple tabs at the same time in browsers have made me feel like maybe it's time to upgrade so I honestly think I could have stayed with Q9550 for like 12 years instead of only 6 😆

Sombrero wrote on 2024-04-18, 12:07:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2024-04-18, 05:03:

I wonder how far the Q9550 would have gotten me compared to the 2500K. 😀

I jumped from Q9550 to Haswell Xeon E3-1230 v3 in 2014 which I'm still using as my main rig.

I feel like I could have stayed with Q9550 far longer and been mostly fine, only recently opening multiple tabs at the same time in browsers have made me feel like maybe it's time to upgrade so I honestly think I could have stayed with Q9550 for like 12 years instead of only 6 😆

for sure, the Q9550 is still a very capable CPU to this day for its age. i know people who still daily drive those chips. too bad the price has gone up so much.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-04-10, 19:58:

QX6700 has early stepping which, on average, has less overclocking headroom. Outside of limited scenarios when you can't overclock FSB, regular Q6600 with G0 stepping is more preferable. QX6850 is other matter and pretty decent.

i have a q6600 too but im gonna continue using my qx6700 since i dont really plan on doing any overclocking YET and core 2 extremes are cool.

VivienM wrote on 2024-04-18, 00:57:

zuldan wrote on 2024-04-17, 08:24:

Would a Q9650 be any good? I hear they don’t run as hot.

Q9650 or QX9650? The Q9650 is a 95W TDP...

i have a core 2 quad 9650, would that be an upgrade to the qx 6700?

Yes. Would you notice it? Not really.

winuser3162 wrote on 2024-04-18, 16:57:

for sure, the Q9550 is still a very capable CPU to this day for its age. i know people who still daily drive those chips. too bad the price has gone up so much.

How much is 'so much'? I remember picking up a Q9650 on eBay last year... I forget how much it was, maybe CAD$30-40, which didn't strike me as unreasonable.