No Cheap Quad-Core Chips from Intel

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Ace-a-Rue

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Using your logic, the best bang for the buck is the cheapest CPU. That should be Sempron 2800+, $25 per core. :rolleyes:

blasphemy!:D

Quote:

Q9450 is going to be between 15% and 20% faster then Q6600. So, both have roughly same performance/price, but the Q9450 is cooler and more OC-able.

i am not sure about those percent...the only thing the 94xx has is the 4mb jump in L2 and SSE4 instructions which does give it a big jump in that category...

the overall gain is going to average about 5-7% for the Q94xx.
10-13-2007, 04:15 PM
Blauhung

Quote:

Originally Posted by en4cer

Sweet, another attempt at Highway Robbery by Intel. WOOT! :shakes:

hehe, supply and demand
10-13-2007, 04:16 PM
adamsleath

Quote:

not to mention the lack of competition means Intel doesn't need it either X(

unfortunately.

i'm guessing q9300's will be rather fsb limited wrt oc....probably better off with a q6600.
? like 450-475x7.5 mobo permitting???
also a factor is that a lot of mobo's do not like high fsb's and quads.

will quad fsb constraints with current mobo's be the same for penryns?

what mobo/s will clock quads the highest?

ie more oc headroom with penryns....which means better clocking mobo req'd for optimum quad oc.

Quote:

533mhz x 7.5 = 4ghz cpu and ddr1066... does that seem a likely o/c to you guys?

i dont think there is a mobo that can clock a quad like this.....?
10-13-2007, 04:26 PM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue

blasphemy!:D

i am not sure about those percent...the only thing the 94xx has is the 4mb jump in L2 and SSE4 instructions which does give it a big jump in that category...

the overall gain is going to average about 5-7% for the Q94xx.

Um 2.66 / 2.4 ~= 10.8% and add the ~10% IPC boost (+extra cache) for York like we've seen from early samples so I think it's safe to assume at least 10% boost for shipping revisions too so Q9450 should be around 20% faster (give or take ~5% depending on app etc). So yeh I agree with MR_SmartAss, Q9450 has roughly same price/performance ratio but has less power consumption/heat dissipation and should overclock a bit better too. Wouldn't be suprised if max clocked Yorkfield would have about 20~25% advantage over max clocked Kentsfield (same multi) due to the overclockability + IPC gain comparing in average.

Since Quad is nearly obsolete yet except some special cases, you might as well wait until you get a bit faster/cooler quad + SSE4 instructions around the time things might actually start using quads. That's my reasoning at least why Kentsfield isn't interesting to me, a Core 2 Duo will do a more than decent job today.
10-13-2007, 04:29 PM
Duh

Quote:

Originally Posted by aiya

i was hoping for a $200 quadcore. oh well time will tell.

I wont buy a quad until it is $100 :)
10-13-2007, 04:58 PM
aiya

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollo

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?

one can only hope for that... well at least i am anyway :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duh

I wont buy a quad until it is $100 :)

we'll probably won't see that till 2010 and if the celeron name is still around... :eek: quadcore celeron :eek:
10-13-2007, 05:25 PM
Ace-a-Rue

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Um 2.66 / 2.4 ~= 10.8% and add the ~10% IPC boost (+extra cache) for York like we've seen from early samples so I think it's safe to assume at least 10% boost for shipping revisions too so Q9450 should be around 20% faster (give or take ~5% depending on app etc). So yeh I agree with MR_SmartAss, Q9450 has roughly same price/performance ratio but has less power consumption/heat dissipation and should overclock a bit better too. Wouldn't be suprised if max clocked Yorkfield would have about 20~25% advantage over max clocked Kentsfield (same multi) due to the overclockability + IPC gain comparing in average.

you are putting to much into numbers that are floated about the net...true, real life always tells you to cut them in half for real value, down to earth performance

Quote:

Since Quad is nearly obsolete yet except some special cases, you might as well wait until you get a bit faster/cooler quad + SSE4 instructions around the time things might actually start using quads. That's my reasoning at least why Kentsfield isn't interesting to me, a Core 2 Duo will do a more than decent job today.

the quad obsolete!?...you can't be serious!..i am going to have to roll my eyes on that one!:D ;)
10-13-2007, 06:23 PM
Vice

The Q9450 is definitely catching my eye.
10-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Ace-a-Rue

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Here you go. Data should be your best friend:
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4013/45uo6.jpg

Add to these numbers some performance boost from the faster FSB @1333MHz of Yorkfield, because Q6600 has FSB @1066MHz.
And BTW, pay attention at the power consumption and the temperatures.

You may roll your eyes over and over, but indeed quad core is obsolete for general users. It may be of use only if you are running a very specific task like rendering and encoding/decoding. How many apps do you know that can utilize 4 cores? Also, how much % of the time your CPU is idle?

thanks for the chart...numbers are MY friend...in that chart there are 39 out of 47 that have less than 8% gain..some, even less than 1%....far more in line with my 5-7% than 10-20%.

it has been shown that jumping from 1066 strap to the 1333 strap garnered only a 1% gain in performance...you must be an intel employee for pumping those high end numbers...i love intel processors but i want factual truth not exaggeration!

Quote:

How many apps do you know that can utilize 4 cores?

you are not doing your homework...apps are increasing daily...there is a thread that shows how many apps and what percentages the cores are being utilized...come back after you study that one.
10-13-2007, 08:00 PM
hollo

Quote:

You may roll your eyes over and over, but indeed quad core is over-kill for general users. It may be of use only if you are running a very specific task like rendering and encoding/decoding. How many apps do you know that can utilize 4 cores? Also, how much % of the time your CPU is idle?

fixed :D
obsolete means out of date
10-13-2007, 08:10 PM
Loque

here's to hoping Q9450 will overclock as good as the q6600 or better.. waiting for that cpu & 9800gtx to buy a new pc..
10-13-2007, 08:49 PM
vengance_01

No big deal, the Q6600 GO will likely go near 250$ due to retailers trying to get rid of excess stock. Might even go lower. The OEM GO's are around 250-260 ATM.
10-14-2007, 01:28 AM
awdrifter

Fry's is already selling it for $268, I'm so tempted to get one, but hopefully it'll be even cheaper in Q1 08 when AMD's quad core finally comes out.
10-14-2007, 01:45 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue

you are not doing your homework...apps are increasing daily...there is a thread that shows how many apps and what percentages the cores are being utilized...come back after you study that one.

Too bad all those apps are nothing I use. :shrug: I'm mainly interested in quad support in games and one to two games or so that might have quad support b4 Yorkfield is out though but that's not enough to not wait for York instead. :D

There's no way to change my mind about Quad core is not needed for general usage, only special cases of computer usage it becomes worth it so far.
10-14-2007, 01:56 AM
flopper

quad with less heat and better overclockability is a must buy even if the dualcore is enough for everyday tasks and gaming.
Even if the performance boost is 5% or so the lower temps and less strain on the overlock will show us a 4ghz most likely on water and maybe even on air.

That is more than enough I guess for computers today.
;)
10-14-2007, 02:32 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace-a-Rue

thanks for the chart...numbers are MY friend...in that chart there are 39 out of 47 that have less than 8% gain..some, even less than 1%....far more in line with my 5-7% than 10-20%.

it has been shown that jumping from 1066 strap to the 1333 strap garnered only a 1% gain in performance...you must be an intel employee for pumping those high end numbers...i love intel processors but i want factual truth not exaggeration!

you are not doing your homework...apps are increasing daily...there is a thread that shows how many apps and what percentages the cores are being utilized...come back after you study that one.

Seriously, when you talk talking about real world. Do yourself a favour and remove ALL SYNTHETICS. Then you are down to 24 or less to use in the count. Also remove any disk, gpu etc limited. Since if you wanna talk about pure CPU performance, then do it.
10-14-2007, 03:45 AM
Epsilon84

I must admit I am disappointed at the lack of a sub $266 QC. I was hoping for an model at around the $200 mark...

It's pretty much Q9450 or nothing... you can save $50 by going Q6600 or Q9300 but at a pretty significant performance hit.
10-14-2007, 03:59 AM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by aiya

i was hoping for a $200 quadcore. oh well time will tell.

buy AMD instead

or second hand Q6600

actually i'm sure you can pickup a X3210 for around that much
10-14-2007, 05:16 AM
Hornet331

i also dont get it how people :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about cpu prices... i just got a pc magazine from the year 2000 in my hands and there was a test of k7 vs. p3 (both 1000mhz top models) and guess the prices 1000€ for the k7 and 1100€ for the p3. :ROTF: (the cheapest p3 (600mhz) was 265€ ...oh the irony :p: )

and people complain about 266$ for a quad? :rofl:
10-14-2007, 05:52 AM
XSAlliN

Since AMD missed with there Tricore, Intel has enough confidence to keep there price steady. :) Still they don't look bad, remember Dual Core prices when they were released and there was no support back then.:shakes:

PS.Wish I find a Quad Core for 10$ and Octa Core for 25$ or maybe I could find them in Kinder Surprise. :rofl:
10-14-2007, 07:44 AM
perkam

Conversation:

"Hello Hi welcome to Pizza Hut"
"Hi, I'd like to order the Meat Lover's Pizza"
"Oh sure, it's $29.99, what extras would you like?"
"Whoa, it was $14.99 a week ago?!?!?"
"Well yes sir, that's because the Domino`s across the street was still there a week ago."

:p

Perkam
10-14-2007, 08:16 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Conversation:

"Hello Hi welcome to Pizza Hut"
"Hi, I'd like to order the Meat Lover's Pizza"
"Oh sure, it's $29.99, what extras would you like?"
"Whoa, it was $14.99 a week ago?!?!?"
"Well yes sir, that's because the Domino`s across the street was still there a week ago."

:p

Perkam

Nah, price is still 14.99$. Its just not dropped to 9.99$ as some had hoped. However the pizza got more fill on and alittle bigger size.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page