Printable View
Processor / Speed / Cache / Front-side bus / Process / Price :
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7835/allmodelbp0.jpg
Benchmarks & Reviews:
X-bit labs: Intel Wolfdale: Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200 Processors Review
HKEPC: Effectiveness tests - 45nm VS. 65nm @ Quad Core
E8500 is 9,5 multi ??
Q9450 looks like a winner for budget.
Very interesting prices.
Xeons, or better yet, Harpertowns, socket 771..Haven't seen a listing yet for them at 3400 except in that display rig Intel had, just at 3160 with a 9,5 multi..Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
uhhh in €uro land this means super cheap dualcores. :D
Way too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
wow very impressive :up:
Wow, very satisfying prices there, especially Q9450 and E8400 are ones I will keep an eye for. I feel like quad core is what I will go for but in case the dual cores will overclock like crazy and for that price the choise might not be so clear. Looks like AMD won't be able to push the prices as high as they'd want/need which I think will bother AMD quite a lot. Basicly Intel's pricing their new lineup like it would be current 65nm C2D/Q getting some slight price cuts, amazing. Pricewars FTW! :D
Q9300 isn't interesting at all. I'd prefer Q9450 - 12Mb L2, x8, 4-cores... It can certainly be overclocked to 3.6GHz on air... - the best of quads. E8400 will be an optimum in <200$ range.
I missed the comparison chart. If that chart is correct, these will be awesome. The increase in video encoding and game fps justifies this purchase for me. I wonder how much better the 45nm are at crunching? I guess I'll have to find out...
Yorkie at 3000mhz is damned close to a Q6600 at 3500mhz..:DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanteraGSTK
QFT :D , hope at this time Motherboards handle the multi of 8 wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Kasparz
It looks like successor of my dual woodcrest is coming next year.
The reduction in temps and decrease in power looks awesome and should mean greater overhead for overclocking
I read somewhere that the SSE4 DIVX benchmark used is misleading because they used an "altered" algorithm that gives very poor visual quality (thus the increase in framerate)...not sure if it's true but I'll see if I can find the source...
THINK OF THE POSSIBILITY'S! oh man this is makin me drool
If only they had some decent multipliers for the lower priced chips...Quote:
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
prices for the mass!
... then AMD will certainly die with its native Quad-Core.Quote:
Originally Posted by bugkalot
With the drop in heat output I think you'll see stable 4ghz systems on air for 24/7 use..Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawne32
wow! serious sam and half-life got some nice bumps in performance there. :up:
im definitely gonna get that q9450 or the q9300 :D
E8400 is the only one I like there....Q9450 would have been nice at 9 multi.
woot! this was so worth waiting for! :woot:
thanks for posting :up:
$530 for a q9550 not bad.
That would be a nice boost for my daily production. Have you already seen some numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
And if I then send my E6600 into retirement in a small server/cruncher... :cool:
Wow, I wish I hadn't bought my Blood-Iron board.
Never seen a x.5 multiplier though.
I think Intel had them on the Pentium 3 for the last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MotF Bane
Couple of crunchers on the XS team are running A1 silicone Penryn. 7x333. Oced to 460-470x7
Man, I dunno about the fields and such, but something must be going right if they can sell a dual core at 3.0G for under 200$, I mean that pretty much implies to me that getting that speed is a cakewalk for their 45nm process. I think that will definitely be my CPU of choice, I still cannot see any remotely convincing reason to move to quad core anytime soon for my computing needs.
OK, I see. Thanks! I hope that they will launch as soon as possible. And even more important to me is, that they have to run well on my Striker, because I don't want to change my mobo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoxxy
They will work with Striker.
A4's;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoxxy
My thoughts exactly .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigchrome
I see a Q9450 in my future. :)
:toast:
Thanks! That was exactly what I wanted to hear! If they'd only publish this promised 1400 bios version... but that's another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoxxy
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I might just have to go quad next year... Oh, and don't forget the cheap-as-chips RAM... 4? 8gigs? I'll take it :D
'08 promises to be another great year...
Best Regards :toast:
hmm would 4.5ghz be acheivable on water for the 9650 for 24/7 if so ill definately be interested
Nice boost in HL2 & SS2. And this chip runs cooler, especially good for the folks who run on air, great!!
sweet :up:
Nice plan but I think you will get borked by the fb-dimm limitQuote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
PS does anybody knows what software are they using for 1080p mpeg2-mpeg4 conversion test??
Yorkie scores over >80% in it. And that alone is worth buying on or two :)
Ok. I know that all ASUSes P965 and nForce 650/680 will support new Wolfdales and Yorkfields.
And what about other mainboard vendors? (not mention all Bearlakes)
Q9450. :drool:
Take into consideration that it's DivX with SSE4, which Conroe lacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Hence the great advantage.
Anyone know why HL2 always gets the biggest boost?
Hopefully the 450 will be in the 300-350$ range. If it isn't, I'm gonna' need to start a lemon-aid stand or something.
Too me that is too much. It is what you pay for performance. The way dx10 games have been going were going to need that much power to play at a decent framerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
AMD better deliver something worthwhile, or I know what is going in my board in January.
Interesting...not that much of a boost in most cases, but still impressive considering the price range.
Edit: I would add a $100 to those prices as they are unreasonably low.
Compare the similar clocked chips on the market today haven't come down in price to those levels, and the numbering systems on these chips make them sound like they completely eclipse the E6000s series, so get ready for some major price gouging
Perkam
:confused: Any E6850 will do 3.8-4.0+ for only $281 retail box shipped. An E6600 is still $226 shipped. New is cheaper.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I've been following Intel Core 2 duo/Quad prices and the prices are dropping off. That signals a new (faster) CPU is going to be released, as I don't understand why Intel would cut prices otherwise.
Hmm, I wonder if they have a 1600 FSB in the works :shrug:
Well well well... looks like I made a good decision on not upgrading till Q1 2008.
Nice! The lower power consumption makes it very attractive for 24/7 use as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
If I can, I'll be getting a 9450 for a F@H server. :yepp:
Naw, you missed out on a lot of fun.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tibu
Me wants Q9450 please ! :drool:
4 Ghz on blow. :)
I planned on saving every penny I earn for college next year but it's going to be very hard in not selling my E6420 and getting a Q9450 :(
Huuuuuuge improvements in games!
________
Weed bubblers
Um.
Where do I place my order for the E8400?
3Ghz, 45nm, x9 multi, $183 ? ? ? :eek:
do you DARE? http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsughnoes.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by evoic
I was thinking about that too, with a lower heat output coming from it. It will be easy to leave 24/7 crunching at 4Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Q9450 is the best deal so far in this chart, much better than E6600 was last year.
I'm still not convinced that quad core will be best for the whole of 2008 and so I fall into the E8400 as the best choice from those options. Cheap cost and 9 multi. I really like the 9 multi for general 24/7 stuff as it matches well with CL4 6400 DDR2 chips which are not very expensive. 9x400=3.6Ghz which all E8400's should do with ease. All the money saved on the chip and memory and motherboard can then be pumped into the larger monitor and fast graphics card.
A nice bang for the buck system would be
E8400 running at 9x400
4GB 6400CL4 DDR2
Cheap P35 or similar motherboard
24inch LCD
Perhaps the new 2900Pro ( if you can get your hands on one).
Interesting to note the equivalent of my $999 Conroe X6800 is soon to be $183 and is improved with more cache with the E8400 .. such is progress :)
Regards
Andy
i know EEKQuote:
Originally Posted by evoic
hopefully these will have better FSB :(
E8400 preferred here too. Hoping the x9 multi is stable both summer/winter temps and error free while at 24/7 3.6GHz-4GHz. Or it'd be a waste to upgrade from a C2D.
Prices should be retailed higher than that, I would think about 100 more actually, especially within first 3-4 weeks of demand. Depends when they get them out.
those look like really nice prises.. wow i can actually afford to buy few of em with out having to resort selling my organs :D
I'm good and waiting on Dual Barcelona server set up 2X 55w:yepp:
Q9450 for 316$ *starts looking for the queue to order*
definitly a winner in case those prices arent too far off....
whoa, better pricing than I had imagined.
Definitely will be picking one of these up :up:
i would say the q9450 is the sweet spot, just a few more bucks, and we all know some retailers will have them for 280, and the 6m cache quad for prolly 240, after the first month.
i see alot of 4ghz standard rigs before xmas.
my q6600 will be my main proc till late 2009 though, i swore it on myself! not to spend more on my gaming machine
although one of these dual core penryns will be going in my ageing K8 htpc for sure
While I don't have any probs with that the best steppings of Q9450 perhaps might be able to handle 4GHz even on highend air or wc, I think mobos will have a harder time being stable at speeds like 8x500 for example, I have a hard time believing that will be a common stable quad core FSB. So yea I see the reason why the 8.5x & 9x quad is so much expensier. :D For dual core 8x is just about enough or for "surfing on the wave of your mobo fsb limit" for most ppl with a P35 board for example but with quad a 8.5x/9x multi would be nice for a quad core with good overclockability if you're that person that wants to overclock to the max and wanna take the advantage of the overclocking benefit of the new CPU series lineup. Isn't like 465~480 where Kentsfield usually tops out on P35 mobos with non extreme cooling setups? I pray for that Penryn somehow would allow easier overclocking of quads or put less stress on the mobo so that the the typical FSB wall of quads would rise from let's say 470~480 to sth more like 500~510. That would be nice but I doubt it but I'm always allowed to dream. :D
True. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
But letīs just see what AMD has to say about it.
Then, in January i decide what to put im my new rig... "Penryn+X38/48" or "Phenom+RD790"...nice dillema to me... :ROTF:
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