I wonder how much impact the extra cache and fsb will really have.
If I go a Q6600 G0 in Nov then I'd be tempted to grab a Q9450 in Feb/Mar 08 perhaps. The question being, is it worth upgrading for 260mhz and whatever the cache/fsb bring?
Printable View
I wonder how much impact the extra cache and fsb will really have.
If I go a Q6600 G0 in Nov then I'd be tempted to grab a Q9450 in Feb/Mar 08 perhaps. The question being, is it worth upgrading for 260mhz and whatever the cache/fsb bring?
If you really wanna get a York I'd say grab a cheap E4400 or E6550/E6750 now or else go Q6600 and be happy with that and perhaps sometimes later on when York gets dirt cheap then you might concider it.
The lower multis could well kneecap Quadcore overclocking, unless the new chips really offer better FSB.
500x7= 3500= not great... might be better sticking with a Q66?
The top-end 45nm 1333 Quad will have an x9 multi...and those are EXPENSIVE
Yea, with the lower multi on the 45nm, they'll be fsb limited, might as well get the Q6600.
you folders better get you're orders in early, you know that q9450 is gonna be short supply when it releases.. I hope etailers don't price gouge the heck out of it... ++++++2.66ghz and 12mb cache - I'm betting this chip will be the new cruncher chip of choice for budget crunchers... maybe it will drop prices on the q6600, the chip of choice now for us folders.
I wish they made the LV server 380$ 2.5Ghz/1333/12MB 50W quad for desktops too :(
the qx9650 got pushed back to jan?... nooooooooooo. :( :stick:
What the...
That list doesn't make sense at all.
the Q6600 2.4ghz @ $266 with an 8mb cache
the Q6700 2.66ghz @ $530 8mb cache 1066mhz
then comes the Q9300 2.5ghz, also at $266, but with a 6mb cache (tradeoff)
now, here is where it gets really strange.
the Q9450 2.66ghz @ $316, with a huge 12mb cache and a die shrink AND is 1333mhz.
This is odd, since the Q6700 is running at the same speed, has a smaller cache and a bigger die (right) and is over $200 more, what?
so wait 9450 will be gimped like the guy from people under the stairs?> 7.5xmulti?
what the.
Its not odd, what these lists usually forget to reflect is, that the older models goes EOL and the price just shows stock price.Quote:
Originally Posted by SafeFire
So yes, instead of a pricecut we get faster CPUs.
damn, what are you smoking? Or did I miss the joke :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
There are 3ghz 80watt QC@45nm, do you think 200mhz will produce a jump even close to 40W+? :rofl:
It's prolly AMD's fault, they can't release something competetive in the mid-high end desktop and push Intel.Quote:
That list shows all Penryn based CPU's moved to January release at earliest. I thought Intel was releasing something in November, and given prices have been moving down on current C2D's, I think there will be more than an EE launch in November.
However I hope Intel will cut prices for their C2D to clear inventory and not just EOL.. I want 'em to push AMD and not just to improve their margins :(
Anyway, I don't want to believe this roadmap, Intel could and should release an XE yorkfield in Q4 at >1k $ just to make money (and to give us some overclocking goodness).
Me too! :confused: :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ye of little faith :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
the release date in that list its ok???
in this other source they say QX9650 in November
Quote:
Prices of Intel 45nm Desktop CPUs Revealed
The title says it all - Intel 45nm Yorkfield and Wolfdale CPU pricing.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5...upricesjs4.png
Source: TechConnect Magazine
:up:
Q9450 is the new Q6600.
They'll only release the QX9650 first to make the most money off the early adopters and benchers that have to have Penryn.
boy, it's sometimes useful to read news carefullyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.p...=16312&catid=2
Quote:
Still not named and in rumor stage, the new processor is clocked at 3.2 GHz and features a FSB of 1600 MHz. As the QX9650, it is a quad-core Yorkfield, with 12 MB of L2 cache but unfortunately, it has a higher TDP than the QX9650, 136W compared to 130W.
I skimmed it but didn't see 136W. sry. but wtf are they smoking? (I hope) that's impossible BS (they say it's a rumour), apart from that TDP should be an even number.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
imo intel doesn't even need a 3,2ghz 1600fsb part and it shouldn't be impossible to bin it at <130W, however they need more chips with really low tdp for mobile/server-lv and enthusiasts don't care about TDP. maybe that's their reason.
Ye, reading carefully is the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
In other words, they dont have a clue and just do some wild guesses.Quote:
in rumor stage
Also 3.16Ghz Quad server is 120W TDP with 3.0Ghz 80W.. And even that is way beyond its real TDP since they do quite big jumps (50-80-120).
Sweet, another attempt at Highway Robbery by Intel. WOOT! :shakes:
I smell allot of contradiction in this thread :D
With quad cores? 24/7 stable? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by happychappy
if you have a board that can do 500+ fsb the q9300 would do better than the q6600 most of the time. 6mb l2 shouldn't be much of a bottleneck, while the q9300 would have better performance per clock anyway, and higher overclocks.
533mhz x 7.5 = 4ghz cpu and ddr1066... does that seem a likely o/c to you guys?
What's wrong with the Q6600 for $266? That isn't cheap? I guess it's not a reduced price, that's would be your issue.
Q6600 can do 3.5 Ghz on air, correct? That's a damn fine machine for $450 ASUS+Q6600 combo at Fry's. :)
BTW: You can blame AMD for Intel not dropping their quad price. AMD didn't drop the ball. They just never bothered to catch it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by StyM
the Q6600 is still the best bang for the buck at $66.50 per core!
the next is the Q9450 at $79 per core with an extra 4 mb of L2