New (green) Intel CPUs january 18th and new SSDs/Pricecuts

Seems the increased green view is expanding :)

Quote:

---

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369

Q9400s 2.66 GHz 6MB 1333 MHz $320

Q8200s 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz $245

---

Quote:

---

Beginning on January 18, Intel will launch three new Core 2 Quad processors with a TDP of just 65W. This is compared to a 95W TDP for most other Core 2 Quad processors. At the time of launch, the price premium for the Q8200s, Q9400s, and Q9550s will be $62, $54, and $53 respectively compared to the non "s" models.

---

Quote:

---

Intel is also launching a new Pentium Dual Core processor in November and one more on January 18. The 2.6 GHz Pentium Dual Core E5300 will show up on November 30 priced at $86. The E5300 will be joined by a 2.7 GHz Pentium Dual Core E5400 on January 18 priced at $84. At that time, the E5300 will see a price cut to $74 while the older 2.5 GHz E5200 will fall to $64.

Slightly higher up on the food chain will be a new 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo E7500 priced at $133

---

Quote:

---

Intel's power efficient 35W processor lineup will also see some changes in at the end of the year. No less than five new processors will be introduced ranging in price from $241 to $530. In addition, the slower 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo P8600 will fall from $241 to $209 on January 18.

Intel also hasn't forgotten about its other businesses when it comes to price cuts. Intel's multi-level cell (MLC) X25-E solid state drives (SSDs) have been burning up the benchmark charts thanks to its highly optimized memory controller. The street price for the 2.5" 80GB X25-M -- and its 80GB 1.8" X18-M counterpart -- will drop from $600 to $525 on November 30. 160GB variants of the X25-M/X18-M will show up in the first half of 2009 and will initially be priced at $990.

Moving over to the single-level cell (SLC) parts, Intel will introduce its high performance 32GB X25-E for $700 on November 30. For those that are patient, the price will drop to $575 on December 28. A 64GB part will be introduced in the first half of 2009 for $990.

---

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13449

990$ 160GB SSD for me :rofl:

But my Q9400 already consumes less than 60W...

Isn't the P8600 running at 3,4 GHz.? 2,4GHz. seemed so odd....

They have to slash those SSD prices by at least 1/5th, this is still ridiculously expensive. The "M" in Intel X25-M is supposed to stand for something like mainstream, but this is far from it. I hope we will have some more competition in the SSD market, starting next year.

They can't do that.

Intel is blue, green is AMD's color :p:

That e7500 will have a high multiplier I presume. It should be really good for an under 500$ budget OC rig.

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369


Does anyone know how Intel brought down the TDP to 65W?



What changes have they made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsbb

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369


Does anyone know how Intel brought down the TDP to 65W?



What changes have they made?

---

The QX9650 only uses ~65W, but it's rated at 95W. I bet they undervolted a bit, and just adjusted their TDPs. Only the 9770 uses above 65W, Intel's been overrating their TDPs on their CPUs for a while.

might overclock better...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsbb

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369


Does anyone know how Intel brought down the TDP to 65W?



What changes have they made?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

But my Q9400 already consumes less than 60W...

---

Highly optimised process, lots of CPUs will consume close to that from the start, no? Most likely they lowered the voltage slightly. Great way to monetize the trend towards green computing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacky

Highly optimised process, lots of CPUs will consume close to that from the start, no? Most likely they lowered the voltage slightly. Great way to monetize the trend towards green computing.

---

The only thing green about my PC is the color of the system LEDs :rofl:

It is kind of funny in a way seeing all these PC performance enthusiasts on here talking about "green" computing. Most PCs here use more power than ever :p:

On a more serious note, lower power consumption does mean easier to cool and possibly cheaper to run, depending on how much difference there is.

LOL why would Intel throw a lower case "s" on the end of these models. It just makes everything seem so....plural. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

The only thing green about my PC is the color of the system LEDs :rofl:

It is kind of funny in a way seeing all these PC performance enthusiasts on here talking about "green" computing. Most PCs here use more power than ever :p:

---

:ROTF: Ain't that the truth, more like my system consumes 500w when its idle if it idles, I game and crunch 28hrs a day 9 days a week 60 weeks a year 15 years a decade, I AM XTREME damnit. :D

32GB SLC for less than what the MLC's currently cost? Perhaps by late next year the 64GB SLC will be reachable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helmore

They have to slash those SSD prices by at least 1/5th, this is still ridiculously expensive. The "M" in Intel X25-M is supposed to stand for something like mainstream, but this is far from it. I hope we will have some more competition in the SSD market, starting next year.

---

The M stands for MLC.

Welcome to xtremesystems and the computer hobby - the place where you lean that performance isn't cheap unless you're talking about cardboard box ducting for your CPU heatsink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polizei

The M stands for MLC.

Welcome to xtremesystems and the computer hobby - the place where you lean that performance isn't cheap unless you're talking about cardboard box ducting for your CPU heatsink.

---

Hey hey no dissing the cardboard! read my user title ;) :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Hey hey no dissing the cardboard! read my user title ;) :rofl:

---

I can't diss what I've seen in person.

That's the rule of the intarwebz, you can only diss what you haven't seen or people you haven't met. ;)

nice way from intel to increase prices without much effort, just a bit speed binning, the power consumption was already in that tdp range :D

there will always be people that buy the more green one, although the added green value with a quad core can be discussable (unless its for server/workstation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polizei

The M stands for MLC.

Welcome to xtremesystems and the computer hobby - the place where you lean that performance isn't cheap unless you're talking about cardboard box ducting for your CPU heatsink.

---

Let me guess, the "E" in Intel X25-E stands for SLC....
Check the first Intel slide on this review here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3403
There it quite obviously says the M stands for Mainstream, at least that's the way it seems to me.

M for Mainstream (using MLC) and E for Extreme (using SLC) IMO.

MLC is the cheapest form of memory in an SSD. That is why it's maintstream. That is why you can buy POS JMicron-based SSDs for under $100 now, because they use cheap controllers and cheap flash memory.

SLC requires a better controller, so it's faster, meaning not mainstream, meaning not cheap.

how will this lower power consumption affect OC's? i'm sure (almost) no one on here keeps their chips at stock speed. hoping that lower power means a lower VID, so more headroom to increase the vcore. hopefully this translates to higher clocks at the same vcore as the current q9550 E0

as for the SSD's, are there any benchmarks to compare the 80GB X25-M (MLC) to the 32GB X25-E (SLC)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

how will this lower power consumption affect OC's? i'm sure (almost) no one on here keeps their chips at stock speed. hoping that lower power means a lower VID, so more headroom to increase the vcore. hopefully this translates to higher clocks at the same vcore as the current q9550 E0

as for the SSD's, are there any benchmarks to compare the 80GB X25-M (MLC) to the 32GB X25-E (SLC)?

---

The lower power chips are binned to work on lower stock voltages, this will then result in lower power consumption. For us it means the CPU has more headroom in general as you can still increase the voltage to the same level as the 'normal' version of the chip, but you start from a lower 'starting position'.

So P8600 means a E8600 - 30W? If so im sure ill grab one to last long my 775 platform :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morais

So P8600 means a E8600 - 30W? If so im sure ill grab one to last long my 775 platform :D

---

no, it's not just a e8600 with lower power consumptions. p8600 is a laptop CPU, and it's 2.4ghz, not 3.33

argh, so no <65W dual cores 775? Might grab a 65W quad then :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

as for the SSD's, are there any benchmarks to compare the 80GB X25-M (MLC) to the 32GB X25-E (SLC)?

---

I haven't seen very many X25-E benchmarks yet, only HDTune & STR

Original Source
http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...08242&page=153

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morais

argh, so no <65W dual cores 775? Might grab a 65W quad then :cool:

---

While it's rated for "65W", the E8500 only uses ~35-40W at most, so, if Intel wanted to they could tighten the ratings on those parts and rename them with the "s" ehancement also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

I haven't seen very many X25-E benchmarks yet, only HDTune & STR

Original Source
http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...08242&page=153

---

how come that looks like the same transfer rate and seek time as the X25-M? thought SLC were suppose perform better, not just last longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

While it's rated for "65W", the E8500 only uses ~35-40W at most, so, if Intel wanted to they could tighten the ratings on those parts and rename them with the "s" ehancement also.

---

how do you measure exactly how much power it consumes without muliplying the vcore x amps?

When you use SSDs it's all about random write and read... Some SSDs have serious troubles when under heavy load with many small files. Intel's SSDs seem to do best up to now from this point of view, but they are damn expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

how come that looks like the same transfer rate and seek time as the X25-M? thought SLC were suppose perform better, not just last longer.


how do you measure exactly how much power it consumes without muliplying the vcore x amps?

---

Its about write. MLC writes with like 70MB/sec. SLC writes with 200+

They read about equally as fast. And the seektime is about equal too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

When you use SSDs it's all about random write and read... Some SSDs have serious troubles when under heavy load with many small files. Intel's SSDs seem to do best up to now from this point of view, but they are damn expensive.

---

Too expensive! Man for dollar/GB these things are rediculous. It's probably gonna take 2 years for these to mature. Still looking for WD's solution now that they aquired Fujitsu. Should be interesting in the next couple of years, but until they get the capcity up and the price down, these things just aren;t cost effective.

For those that know me, they know I'm not one to be a penny pincher. I'll buy some topline expensive stuff, but these things are like throwing money into a fire pit right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its about write. MLC writes with like 70MB/sec. SLC writes with 200+

They read about equally as fast. And the seektime is about equal too.

---

Intel claims write speeds of around 170 MB/s for their X25-E SSDs, but their claims of 70 MB/s write on their X25-M is seems to be reasonably conservative. All talking about sequential write speed ofcoure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39

LOL why would Intel throw a lower case "s" on the end of these models. It just makes everything seem so....plural. :ROTF:

---

How many Q9550seses do you want to buy? :ROTF: While we're at it i'll take one of those 160GB SSDs Salt Lake City editions :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

Too expensive! Man for dollar/GB these things are rediculous. It's probably gonna take 2 years for these to mature. Still looking for WD's solution now that they aquired Fujitsu. Should be interesting in the next couple of years, but until they get the capcity up and the price down, these things just aren;t cost effective.

For those that know me, they know I'm not one to be a penny pincher. I'll buy some topline expensive stuff, but these things are like throwing money into a fire pit right now.

---

Dollar per gigabyte? Who cares? I know no one that needs more than 160GB for an OS/programs drive. Hell, I don't know anyone that needs more than 120.

If you were going to buy something like this for storage... why? More storage with slightly slower speeds using a large RAID array, plus you get redundancy. Why does storage need to be fast? Right, it doesn't.

with low TDP who wouldnt want this new "green view" hehe

Q9550s - just what I've been waiting for :)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._Desktops.html

X9100/QX9300 new oc kings?

35W TDP for each :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

M for Mainstream (using MLC) and E for Extreme (using SLC) IMO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helmore

Let me guess, the "E" in Intel X25-E stands for SLC....
Check the first Intel slide on this review here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3403
There it quite obviously says the M stands for Mainstream, at least that's the way it seems to me.

---

the anand page aint loading for me.. i'm pretty sure E is for Enterprise - the target market for the SLC SSDs ;)

a one month bump :D

it's almost january, so how come the e5300 hasn't launched yet? it was scheduled on november 30. any updates on this? still waiting for that q9550s!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

a one month bump :D

it's almost january, so how come the e5300 hasn't launched yet? it was scheduled on november 30. any updates on this? still waiting for that q9550s!

---

http://geizhals.at/eu/?a=366768&t=al...ahme&vl=de&v=l

available since the 5th here. ;)

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369

If they're improving process and yields which is highly likely then this could be a sick competitor to the Phenom II. Looks like it could be a tough choice between two chips that will likely reliably hit 4ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RVWinkle

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369

If they're improving process and yields which is highly likely then this could be a sick competitor to the Phenom II. Looks like it could be a tough choice between two chips that will likely reliably hit 4ghz.

---

Just get the regular Q9550 for that.

Still so expensive though .. I expect a lower price :D

Yea, but where are the gainstowns?:D

I didnt buy for cristmass Q9550 for my self...
check this, this is riping off poor ppl! , price araund 355 euros :shakes:

http://www.comshop.si/Article.asp?articleid=58397

Is there going to be a q9650s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Yea, but where are the gainstowns?:D

---

Your powerbill is a lost cause dave.. Just accept it.