Testing:
 

NICE!

For testing purposes, several different memory modules were used to help answer any questions about compatibility. In my experience, ABIT boards have done really well with OCZ, G.Skill, Patriot, and Mushkin memory kits .The OCZ PC2-6400 FlexXLC memory kit now uses Elpida modules rather than Microns found in the original kit which was the only problematic kit to throw a few kinks in the system. After clearing the BIOS and a little management, the system would finally boot with the memory defaulting to 533MHz. Setting all the BIOS options to AUTO allow the system to work perfectly, but using any settings out side the AUTO specified spectrum weren't always stable. I'm quite sure ABIT will have a new BIOS fix very soon for this very new platform. In the meantime, this is the only issue I have encountered working with the board. Regular functions like the 7.1 sound quality, USB, and SATA have worked properly and without one issue.

Also, one very important thing worth noting. I encountered what seemed like another BIOS issue at first, but revealed itself as a very common user error. When anyone receives a new motherboard, it comes with the default BIOS settings which include Fan Speeds preset in the BIOS. If your CPU cooler doesn't properly register enough fan RPMs, the BIOS will stop short of posting. In my particular case, the Enzotech Ultra-X CPU Cooler was used which includes a variable fan control. It seems that the motherboard wasn't correctly receiving the RPM count due to the controller which caused the system to pause and power down. Good Job! It did what it is suppose to do. Increasing the fan control to at least half would properly report enough RPMs and the system would post without issue. So, if you thought you had a dead board or something wasn't compatible, you might want to double check your fan's standard RPM specs.

BIOS	OC GURU	ABIT EQ
Temperatures	Voltages	RPMs High
RPMs Too Low	Advanced Chipset	Memory Timings

Since the IN9 32X-MAX supports the newest Core 2 Quad as well as the Core 2 Duo, a gamut of tests using Cinebench 9.5, Sisoft Sandra Professional XI, and 3DMark05 were used to test both processors. Only the commonly adjusted BIOS options were used in considering the platform's capabilities. CPU and motherboard chipset voltages were increased mainly where the processor was involved to keep up with the platforms BUS speed.
 

E6600 CPUZ

Q6600 CPUZ

Mainboard

Memory Timings

I thought Core 2 Duo was really quick and even quicker when overclocked. The Q6600 doesn't out perform the E6600 under typical and standard processor based programs including games. The Quad core makes for really quick tests under Cinebench 9.5 when the Multi-CPU benchmark is measured. The E6600 still processes the benchmark much faster than my AMD 64 3500+ processor was evenly remotely capable of including the Single CPU benchmark.

The Q6600 does cut down compiling and installation times as well as execution times in any given server environment. Essentially, the processor was originally meant for the home or office systems intended for server applications. Since then, market perception and demand has changed as the future continues to look forward to the day more software and video games fully use the benefit of multi-core processors. Keeping things in their current perspective, typical testing reveals that most performance gains are still limited to single processors. SANDRA benchmarks reveal just how much more capable quad core will be once we have the software available that can use it. CPU Mathematical and Multi-Media benchmarks increase as the processors frequencies increase.
 

The Q6600 reaches 1333MHz, while the E6600 reaches 1400MHz and higher

Alas, it was time to really tax the IN9 32X-MAX and see how the motherboard overclocks. Overclocking the Q6600 installed on this platform resulted in a maximum 3.1GHz frequency with a 350 Bus Speed or 1400MHz FSB. This required quite a bit of extra voltage for the CPU and chipset options. It seems that there is a invisible limit set at 1400MHz when involving quad cores. Unfortunately, this frequency was not completely stable and nothing seemed to help frequency even with lowering the multiplier and maxing out every voltage option. SANDRA Pro XI would finish benchmarking, but revealed sporadic test results that didn't make any sense. Maximum stability could only be maintained up to the 1375MHz FSB area with very detailed tweaking which I didn't find to be any benefit worthy of the trouble. In the end, the Q6600 ran superbly at an ideal 1333MHz FSB (333Bus) which didn't kick up enough heat to worry about under full load during testing.
 

The Q6600 reaches 1333MHz, while the E6600 reaches 1400MHz and higher

After cooking up the Q6600 thoroughly, I just had to add a slice of E6600. Right after switching the processors, the BIOS was configured and prepared for the tests by double checking the voltages and memory timings. The benchmarks are very close in comparison and performance at stock and overclocked speeds. This is simply because they two nearly identical, except where number of cores and type are design. Both processors operate at 2.4GHz per core. The E6600 required a bit more stock voltage than the Q6600 especially when overclocked.