You're the only one (well, beside savantu ;)) who's FUDing this thread!
let me ask you: did Q9300 cost same as Q6600? Did Yorkfield lift off in mass sales on 7th of January? Make up your mind will Nehalem start of with 500 or 1000 USD price tag?
Printable View
You're the only one (well, beside savantu ;)) who's FUDing this thread!
let me ask you: did Q9300 cost same as Q6600? Did Yorkfield lift off in mass sales on 7th of January? Make up your mind will Nehalem start of with 500 or 1000 USD price tag?
I think that intel will start dropping the prices of the current chips to more mid range levels releasing the nehalem in the upper brackets, as it shows in thier roadmap. I dont see where there is much room to argue about this, its laid out in the road map, and the prices, will remain only rough estimates based on the target population and previous chip prices, untill we get any official number. As always they will release high, and drop over time.
let me ask you another question: did a Q6600 outperform a Q9300?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I love how the pro AMD fans believe this to be some sort of conspiracy. It's deja vu all over again from 2006... and how did that turn out again? :rolleyes:
AMD fans must be getting desperate.
Im no AMD fan nor Intel fan(Performance vs Price Fan tho), but yes I am gettin desperate that AMD is getting so far behind. The competition between AMD and Intel is vital for the costumers, well it is for me anyway...
I dont get comments like: "AMD fans must be getting desperate"
The only reason a person should be getting desperate about AMD is if they spent ALL their life savings on AMD stock...
I love that Intel is releasing what seems to be a very nice CPU. What I dont love is that AMD is getting left in the dust, because I know that its going to end up i higher prices for a good new CPU.
I know I haven't been posting a lot on this forum, but I have been reading here a lot and lately its been going downhill with all the Intel/AMD/nVidia/ATI comments....
It seems to be religion for some people, and I hate religion.
So you want Intel to slow down for the sake of AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by MavT
And if you hate it, why do you care...?
I think everyone wants AMD to speed up and both companies to continue rapidly improving. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
Right now I'm on a Phenom and I was planning on getting a 45nm Phenom later this year... but if this kind of performance improvement is seen regularly and translates into gaming performance, then I would consider paying the price for Nehalem in 2009. It's really mindblowing performance.
Hell, really giant scores! :eek:
But let's wait for final products and price, Intel knows how much their products are worth.
Extelleron hits it right on the head!
Clairvoyant129 Im not sure what you mean, but Im sorry I brought out your comment as an example. If your offended you have my apologies.
Ok, I just saw this http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...m/nehalem1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
This indicated that the Nehalem CB10 singlethreaded performance are very close to the Penryn's.
I would welcome AMD staying in the game so far the top chip from Intel jumped from 1000-1100 (qx9650) to 1500.00 for a qx9770
Tests yes, apps no. When AMD went from AthlonXP to Athlon64 with IMC, Games gained more than anything else IIRC. I don't know why folks wouldn't see anything similar happening here. The way some folks have jumped on the FSB is Killing performance Bandwagon, I'm kind of shocked that's not being factored in. No, I'm not putting much into a barely working board test or etc...... I much rather trust fugger, kingpin and my favorite MovieMan or etc.... testing these. Again, what I've heard so far, is that Nehalem is easily faster in EVERYTHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Actually, Q9300 launched for much less than what Q6600 did!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/01...2_quad_q6600/1
Do you really need a link showing Q9300 for around $300 and the current going for $275 FS at Newegg? No one dreamed this much performance would cost this much when X2 had heafty prices:horse:Quote:
On the pricing front, Intel has introduced the chip with a US$851 price tag (in 1000-unit quantities). DailyTech suggests that the chip will be reduced to US$530 in the second quarter of this year.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../kaigai01l.gif
If Intel sticks to the Roadmap, anyone who read it can see 2.83GHz is slated for Q4 and the price giving one the Map shows from about $320/5 to $400. For those who don't know to use it;
Go to the Grey section that says 2008
Go to part that says Q4 under the 2008.
Follow the Blue section with Grey lines at a 45 deg ang down to its lowest point.
There you'll find 2.83GHz Bloomfield Q9550.
Now move straight to the right to the price range, there it clear shows the top of the scale at $400. There shouldn't be any pricing concerns since right below this shows the 2.66GHz Q9400 for $325 or lower. Not to be confused witht the 9300 that has half as much L2 cache. Or the 3.3GHz Wolfdale in the same price range.
http://compare.intel.com/pcc/default.aspx?familyID=1
Helps folks complaining about being confused:up::confused2: The Yorkfields of the same speed will die out, get replaced, go EOL as the map shows!
Actually Donnie, I think you misread the chart. The 2.83Ghz Q9550 is NOT a Bloomfield, it is a Yorkfield. Look at the legend at the bottom of the screen. The boxes with an orange background and pink border are Yorkies. The Bloomfield is a blue background with pink border.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
This says nothing about Bloomfield model numbers, but what it does say is that we will see at least 3 Bloomfield chips released ranging from Mainstream 3, Performance 1 and Extreme Edition product segments.
Yep you are correct,those are Yorkfield clocks on the roadmap,it's painfully obvious :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
AMD THIS IS THE TIME TO RELEASE THAT UBER SUPER DUPER CPU U HAVE IN THE SECRET UNDERGROUND LAB!
I for one am a intel guy but with no competition prices will soar!
Please follow my instructions? Yorkfield Q9550 dies and is replaced by Bloomfield Q9550. Underneath that shows Q9400 Yorkfield being the fastest Intel will ship after Nehalem. Q9550 Orange is Yorkfield and Q9550 Blue is Nehalem-Bloomfield. Right there in the Blue box it says Bloomfield over the orange box that is the Yorkfield, meaning a Bloomfield model will replace this Q9550 and that's set for Q4. If that weren't the case, the whole column would have stayed Orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
No, they don't say speeds or models but I've saying Q9550 will be replaced by a Nehalem model right at its price point of between $325 and $400. The way it is shown on this Roadmaps, that replacement could take place in Q4-08, Q1 09 or Q2 09. On another thread I said I don't know if it will be 2.66 or 2.83GHz. Either way, that first model is less than $400. That should be nothing for folks who waited a year and a half for Phenom LOL!
And you know this how?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
I've seen many more Nehalem wafers than you. :up:
That makes PERFECT sense, considering they are BOTH 4-issue cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
Ok, we're just arguing semantics now, Yes, a Bloomfield will replace the Q9550 in that price segment. On this point we never disagreed, but it will not ALSO be called Q9550, it will most certainly receive a new model number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
There will NEVER be a 2.83Ghz Bloomfield since there is no multiplier that will yield 2.83 Ghz (8.5 * 333 for Yorkfield; unless They make a 21.23 multiplier for Nehalem ). Bloomfield must use a base 133Mhz multiplier.
OK! You're right, my bad:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
The one Anand tested was an ES 2.67GHz. Until that time, I'd though all Nehalems would run at with a base clock of 200MHz not 133MHz. I promise, I'm not trying to nit pick or be a jerk, nothing I'm thinking here is written in concrete plus, Hell, I wanted to see to 400 X 5 or 200 X 10 for for the base clock, not 133MHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3326&p=2
As page two shows, Bloomfield does use a 133MHz Base Clock with a 20X multiplier. This leaves tons of room to grow as that base clock gains speed. But as we all also know, that high of a multiplier also adds Latency.
:ROTF: you just can't stop, do you. over and over every thread talking about that price.... you forget what price was asked for EE garbage during that time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
no one dreamed of such a single to dualcore performance increase when netburst was around. :D
get one with your life, we know you couldn't afford such a good cpu at that time and you still have nightmares from that.
No need for such garbage like that. Even though I may or not always agree with Donnie27, he almost always presents his arguments concisely and more often than not factually. So please attack his argument not him. [/soapbox]Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
amazing isnt it :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinacolada
gonna start saving up :D Im kinda looking at the refresh (tock?tick? :S) to jump onboard the nehalem wagon, but this looks very nice this far :)
What, did I touch a Raw Nerve? Yes, that's it, stick to personal attacks since you don't have anything contructive or etc... to say LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx