No Cheap Quad-Core Chips from Intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omastar

Why are people so concerned about lower multipliers if new chipsets (X38 and beyond) can hit such incredible FSBs (600+ for 24/7)?

---

That's because it's not true. Even the old Commandos could hit +500FSB, but did you see anyone running that for general use? People would be running below 370 very usually.
The new low multi only allows very high FSBs that are not achievable on many MBs. Q9450 is the new hotty, but at 8x multi will require 500FSB to get 4GHz. Count most MBs out there especially with quad cores. :(

Look at the X38 chipsets reviewed by VR-Zone, two top class offerings out of $$$ range for most by ASUS and Gigabyte, one was even beat by P35, and none hit above 484FSB C2D stable, with lowest being 460FSB QC stable. http://sg.vr-zone.com/articles/Gigab...ants/5306.html

And people paying $260-300 for CPUs don't want to pay $250-300 for boards either. I don't see myself nor majorities even running 450FSB 24/7 apart from those with expensive cooling or in number contests.

If they keep one of the quad core models priced at $299 and good like the Q6600 i'll be happy.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elec999

If they keep one of the quad core models priced at $299 and good like the Q6600 i'll be happy.
Thanks

---

There is a faster 2.5Ghz for 266$ that will perform approx like a Q6700.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DerekFSE

I bought my X2 4400+, and it had been out for a bit and not their top processor.

$450.

The quads are cheap, real cheap.

---

I agree, 6850@4.0 on air for $270. What did these whiners do before c2d? If you can't afford $300 for a clocking cpu then just get what you can afford, just don't whine about the price.

Maybe Saturday Night live will bring back the whiners and they can audition for either the husband or wife part.;)

Q9450 :up: :up: :up:

if only i played a game that benefitted from a quad core...oh well. :lol:

the main factor for these things as far as i am interested, is heat output.

i cant foresee running one at more than 450x8....and that is achievable now with q6600 @ 400x9...q9450 will be less heat restricted obviously...but highly restricted by mobo fsb imo.

im sure the penryn chippies are superior (clocking potential)to kentsfield ...but i wish they'd bring them out with higher multi's at lower cost :)

500x8 24/7? sure: good luck.


they arent mainstream / are a tiny &#37;>.< age of the market :hehe:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/...es_q1_2008.png
i reckon this pricing wood be betta :ROTF:
q9550 $316
q9450 $266
q9300 $183
to sell more quads vs c2d's.

Looks like I'm stuck with a Q6600 for 4+GHz quadcore benching as I can't afford to drop $500+ on a quad. Really was hoping for some 45nm goodness. Going to be sad though when 4.6+GHz Q6600's are crushing the equally priced 45nm chips when they can only hit 4.2GHz

yeah but.... i'm thinking about the fsb limits of the mobo chipsets :confused:

i thought the chipsets were having some trubble with higher fsb's for quad cores?...vs c2d's

isnt that right?

Quote:

---

Looks like I'm stuck with a Q6600 for 4+GHz quadcore benching

---

444x9?...noway is that 500x8 is it?

Heck?
$1399 for 3.2GHz in Q108?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsleath

444x9?...noway is that 500x8 is it?

---

Figure 8x multi chips will max about 400-500 MHz lower than 9x multi chips. 8x isn't even slightly competitive except against.. other 8x chip :cool: Would be silly to have a cascade to bench at 4GHz :ROTF: Need a 9x or 10x multi chip to abuse

Looking forward to getting one of those E8400s :). 3.0ghz for $183 :cool:

looks like we will have to get 2 cpu's:yepp:
a E8500 for clocking it like nuts and a Q9450 for everyday use:p:

nothing wrong with that though... we paid more for a single cpu in the past though:rofl:

I gather all the Yorkfield, except Q9300 :rofl:
http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo...m/Q9550/01.JPG

http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo...m/Q9550/02.JPG

...

you should have put a big :banana::banana::banana::banana: warning sign before your post... i can see many wetting their pants over that pic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naokaji

you should have put a big :banana::banana::banana::banana: warning sign before your post... i can see many wetting their pants over that pic...

---

Maybe this can wet you pants :shrug:
http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo...50/Default.jpg

http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo...50/Default.jpg

...

Lack of BIOS support the reason you dont run it at 8.5x?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Lack of BIOS support the reason you dont run it at 8.5x?

---

I thought Q9450 was supposed to be 8x333? Have I missed something here? Nice 1.10v haha, guess it's 1.15v stock vcore as 1.35v was for Kenstfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I thought Q9450 was supposed to be 8x333? Have I missed something here? Nice 1.10v haha, guess it's 1.15v stock vcore as 1.35v was for Kenstfield.

---

He means Q9550 ... actually 45nm all can run at 1.10v @default ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Lack of BIOS support the reason you dont run it at 8.5x?

---

Yeap ... you're right ... no update yet :shakes:

Wait for my id activation ... dun wanna use this id :shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n3n3n69

He means Q9550 ...
:)

---

Ahh sorry didn't notice there were 2 different pics. :) Any chance of some quick overclocking shots? :D

looking good, really good... cant wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n3n3n69

I gather all the Yorkfield, except Q9300 :rofl:

---

hmmm, you have 5 yorkfields..
can i have 1 ? :D

1.1v ! holy power efficiency batman. :lol:

i was thinking why does it go from Q9300 to Q9450? would you assume there would be a Q9350 and Q9400?

my guesses:
Q9350 would have 12MB cache but same clockspeed as Q9300
Q9400 would have 6MB cache but same clockspeed as Q9450

kinda like E6300 2MB and E6320 4MB.

Yeap, Rev.C0 :clap:
http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo.../Default_E.jpg

...