Q7500, a budget quad core for under $150

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

so nobody buying Q8200-Q9400s cause of lack of cache and no significant gains over the Q6600 so cutting cache and fsb seems real genius
should have droppd Q82-8300 prces and given us a 8mb cache 45nm around 175

---

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

13x multi is cool, along with its price, but lets wait and see how bad (or not) the lack of cache will impact games and other tasks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I remember the game tests from Pentium E reviews...The L2 castrated Conroe really suffers in games(much more in this type of apps than in anything else).

---

Weren't those tests done where the GPU effect was minimised so we could see how the CPU's stack up?

Now normally I would regard this as quite a valid way to test a CPU's performance in gaming, but I was shocked to learn that apparently this isn't so when it comes to benchmarking PhII.

Maybe it is just the case that PhII's usefulness as a gaming CPU is best tested under GPU limited conditions and Intel budget CPU's when they are CPU limited. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

---

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

---

I think, not sure, that cellies have other problems like slower links and less bandwidth (and bit-width) between core and cache and etc............. Celeron is not just core equal with less cache. I thought Q7X00 was?

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I think, not sure, that cellies have other problems like slower links and less bandwidth (and bit-width) between core and cache and etc............. Celeron is not just core equal with less cache. I thought Q7X00 was?

---

Dunno about that man.....to me these dual cellys were like conroes with tiny caches, no virtualization, narrow FSB and (not sure) no 64bits support. The M-arch itself is derived from core duos IIRC.

The same logic holds true imo with e2*xx series aswell....they perform like 10% worse than e7*00 series clock/clock in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

---

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

i already thought quad cores were pretty ubiquitous.

well, now there is even less of an excuse to not have at least 4 cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

---

Oh I know that but I'm looking at it from Intel's perspective, the fact it could overclock to an excellent level is an aside for them and an advantage to us. I would guess that they are far more interested in getting a budget Quad on the market and less worried about its OC/performance potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

Oh I know that but I'm looking at it from Intel's perspective, the fact it could overclock to an excellent level is an aside for them and an advantage to us. I would guess that they are far more interested in getting a budget Quad on the market and less worried about its OC/performance potential.

---

I agree! Our (DIYers) portion of the market is too small to influence anything.

Yet it is kind of funny how new groups of Enthusiasts keeps getting created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Dunno about that man.....to me these dual cellys were like conroes with tiny caches, no virtualization, narrow FSB and (not sure) no 64bits support. The M-arch itself is derived from core duos IIRC.

The same logic holds true imo with e2*xx series aswell....they perform like 10% worse than e7*00 series clock/clock in games.

---

But all processors in that price range suck for a number of reasons. You get what you pay for many more times than not. You don't buy a Budget Processor, use mobo sound and a crappy Video Card for a Gaming rig.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Quote:

---

AMD, meanwhile, views the X2 as a boutique chip.

"Our desktop dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 products are priced based on performance," said Cathy Abbinanti, an AMD spokeswoman, when asked for comment on the pricing discrepancy. "Based on the performance benchmark information in recent third-party reviews of the competition's dual-core desktop product, we believe our lowest performing AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor will outperform Intel's highest performing dual-core part."
That's true, according to ExtremeTech tests. However, it may end up being a moot point.

"So while Intel is losing in the performance game, it may very well win in the perceived value side of the equation," analyst Loyd Case wrote in his review. "We're likely to see a host of relatively low-cost dual-core systems shipping in the near future. We'll have to see what AMD's response will be."

---

If it was the case then, it shoul still be the case now:up:

I dont know why people think this way I know some people who used to game for a living and they still game but only make it to some tourneys they use onboard sound good headphones and amazing mice but their cpu and video cards are just average at best. plus a budget cpu at 4.5 is not really a hinder on performance.

This huge multiplier is usually coupled with a low fsb wall, similar to the budget e5200. We'll find out once it launches what the average user gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

---

This won't clock that high, just like E5x00 doesn't clock as much as E7x00 and E8x00, unless you jolt 1.5V+ in it...

Plus budget chips usually have a low FSB wall, that's why they are sold as budget chips with a high multi, not because Intel wants you to overclock them... lmfao that's just stupid. Why do you think E5x00s hit FSB walls at 350 FSB, while E7x00 at 400+ and E8x00 sail at 500 easily...

And why do you think E8x00 can reach 4Ghz with ~1.3v, E7x00 need ~1.4v and E5x00, you will be lucky if you get there with ~1.5v. Intel just bins and sells accordingly, this cpu basically spells out "we got a lot of chips that aren't cut to be Q8x00s, so lets make money by making a new SKU".

Still, I got nothing against a $150 quad running above 3 GHz with practically stock voltage, but don't expect 4 GHz clocks...

I dont know man ive seen some beast E5200's get to 4ghz at 1.3v and some getting 4.8 but voltage goes way higher then for 24/7 use and some E5200 breaking 5ghz now the E5400 is unreleased and seems to be doing better another budget cpu Im just hopeful for this to be the E5200 of the quad cores because the E5200 is damn good IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG87

This won't clock that high, just like E5x00 doesn't clock as much as E7x00 and E8x00, unless you jolt 1.5V+ in it...

Plus budget chips usually have a low FSB wall, that's why they are sold as budget chips with a high multi, not because Intel wants you to overclock them... lmfao that's just stupid. Why do you think E5x00s hit FSB walls at 350 FSB, while E7x00 at 400+ and E8x00 sail at 500 easily...

And why do you think E8x00 can reach 4Ghz with ~1.3v, E7x00 need ~1.4v and E5x00, you will be lucky if you get there with ~1.5v. Intel just bins and sells accordingly, this cpu basically spells out "we got a lot of chips that aren't cut to be Q8x00s, so lets make money by making a new SKU".

Still, I got nothing against a $150 quad running above 3 GHz with practically stock voltage, but don't expect 4 GHz clocks...

---

QF Absolute T!

Then like in the case of the Celeron, even if the high MHz are reached, it still suck due to other features either that were removed or not fully implemented.

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drizzt5

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

---

I dont think they would compare stronger cache on the q6600 gives an advantage but I think we would have to wait for some testing results before speculating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

But all processors in that price range suck for a number of reasons. You get what you pay for many more times than not. You don't buy a Budget Processor, use mobo sound and a crappy Video Card for a Gaming rig.

---

Its an matter of opinion, but i disagree... e7*00 or e5*00 series CPU's clocked beyond 3.2Ghz or so are more than enough for most gamers. It wont bottleneck cards like 4850, 4870 and gtx260 in most games.

Disregard this cooment if u were talking about cellys and e2*00 series only :D They are slow clock/clock, and arent decent OC'ers in general...

Sorry for the OT, but at least it has to do with cache impact on performance :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

---

i remember a review saying it was because of the agressive branching, and because of the small L2 cache it was trashing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeertDB

i remember a review saying it was because of the agressive branching, and because of the small L2 cache it was trashing it

---

Yeah, seems like the m-arch is very cache centric according to the data out there.

Thats why I dont expect much from the q7500.... other than sheer value :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

I dont know why people think this way I know some people who used to game for a living and they still game but only make it to some tourneys they use onboard sound good headphones and amazing mice but their cpu and video cards are just average at best. plus a budget cpu at 4.5 is not really a hinder on performance.

---

Yet the difference between a casual Gamer's Rig and a Professional one is Day and Night. Emulating some Pro Gamer and missing out all of the multimedia games provide is kind of lame. It's like watching an Action adventure movie on a small Black & White TV, in Mono and weak reception.
I remember playing America's army online and being called a cheat I was using something that Processed OpenAL and EAX perfectly TYVM! I was told I had a "Wall Hack" because I knew--->where they were coming from, which way they were going be Up, Down in the next room and not the Hallway or etc.................................... I could tell if the person was laying, knelling or standing :rofl:!

Sure in those face to face shoot em' out you don't need it but I couldn't imagine playing HL2(all), Call Of Duty (all), MoH, Stalker and my other First Person Shooters with crappy Mobo sound:yuck: or Low res.

Last but not least, most of us use our rigs for much more than just games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Its an matter of opinion, but i disagree... e7*00 or e5*00 series CPU's clocked beyond 3.2Ghz or so are more than enough for most gamers. It wont bottleneck cards like 4850, 4870 and gtx260 in most games.

Disregard this cooment if u were talking about cellys and e2*00 series only :D They are slow clock/clock, and arent decent OC'ers in general...

Sorry for the OT, but at least it has to do with cache impact on performance :p:

---

I'm sorry too! Q7500 would still be enough for Games but most of us do more than just play games. There are Apps that are not cache dependent. I don't know but for me, Q9550 is what I'm watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

---

QFT
You will be seeing alot of these in retail consumer desktops.