Q9450 for me :)
Printable View
Q9450 for me :)
Me thinks Intel is Scared:eek:
I'm thinking about purchasing a cheap ASUS P5B-E or P5B plus to install Q9450 later on it. Sorta proceeding upgrade from E6400 to Yorkfield.
yeah, yeah... very SCARED. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
yes.. they are scared that i could decide my Q6600 would be good enough:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Obscured
Agree. The snake was very ugly. Who will DARE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
You are damn right 'cause Q6600 will be a good choice for a long. Even now it costs only 266$ (in Intel's OEM price) and then you'll get it by 183$ or less. A smart choice for thrifty overclockers.Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
hehe.. i'm going to keep my Q6600 anyway.. even if maybe not in my main pc... the a64's in the other two pc's need some upgrading... so i'll prolly swap Q6600 for a Q9450 and put the Q6600 to use in one of the other pc's...
as for oc'ing.. i expect the Q9450 to beat the crap out of my B3 Quad.
the prise reflects that performance isnt that much better than todays cpu.
it is better but not by much, the cost of making them got to come down pretty good tho
E8400 will run 4ghz easy on air :D
Intel slapped on the brakes now comeptition is basicly gone. The only and single good thing is power consumption is decreasing extra ordinary.Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
A ~20% power consumption reduction is awesome yea if the HKEPC testing is accurate but still a +/-10% clock for clock performance gain and better overclockability is still quite nice "feature" too especially for that price, I think the performance gain can outweigh the cost by selling your current C2D/Q quite far.
This is just extrapolation of the CPU power consumption, right?
I guess the gaming performance are so good beacause the entire l2 size is addressable even in single core apps right? (I mean, native quad, not 2xdual)
It's not native quad. But extra cache surely helped somewhat (4 vs 6 MB).
I wonder how good the power consumption with EIST ENABLEd will be.
No, its tested on a board with onboard GFX, HD and AC power.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
I wish there was something like a Q9250 with 12MB and 7*333 at or below the
Q9300's price... that would rock... the current prices are nice, but unfortunately
slightly out of my range at $316+taxes+upcharge+etc
For current 65nm C2D users i don't see any reasons why to spoil money on something hardly better :)
For overclockers it's an other case :D
It might also be a server case, even at 45nm intels chips might nor run low wattage enough.
And yea, if the chips clock as suggested, it be a entusiast dream come true.
Changing pants. ;)
:shocked: 57W Idle Quad with EIST disabled, on board graphics, one hard disk and on AC power, DAMN! :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Good times ahead:yepp:
well the current quad idle consumption is just as impressive as per that screenshot i would sayQuote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
also when you calculate the percentage power consumption jump during load compared to idle you find that the new gen chip jumps by 38.5% whereas the current gen chip only jumps buy 31% >>> i can see some positive and negative connotations here
imho you can't tell anything from this. do you know how 45nm high-k metal gates behave when idle?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
anyway the prices seem really low, putting much pressure on AMD. AMD highend desktop <266$ ...
i don't :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
just working the figures as they are shown that's all
this was what I was hoping for :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
4GHz using a good tower + low speed Yate would be very nice for a quiet gaming rig without going water