Q7500, a budget quad core for under $150

Quote:

---

Since AMD's 45nm AM3 quad-, tri- and dual-core processors are expected to debut next month, it seems Intel is planning to take on its rival's line-up not only with price cuts but also with a new release, that of the Core 2 Quad Q7500. Made using the 45nm process, the CPU has a working frequency of 2.6 GHz, a TDP of 65W, a FSB of 800MHz and just 2MB of L2 cache, half the size of Q8000 series models and six times less than the Q9x50s.

While the small L2 cache size is worrying, the Q7500 may end up a very attractive part depending on its price tag which should be under $150. There's no info on its release date though so we'll have to wait for Intel to make a move.

---

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=24068&catid=2

Specs:
45nm, 65w TDP, 4 cores, 2.6GHz clock, 800 FSB and 2MB cache

If it is priced under $150, then it is very attractive chip

This makes sense and how low these will drop when lynn takes the 300$ is range. Mmm.

mmm, 13x multi, yummy!

1MB x2, brutal.

I wonder how they're gonna compete with the 4MB L3 Phenom II 810/805, since that cache deficiency pretty much puts it even behind Agena wrt the majority of performance evals.

How much % would that tiny cache impact a casual gamer?

nice going intel

great to see low budget quads :up:

pricing states it clear that performance is less than Q8200 which costs 168$ so i would pre assume that less cache will give at least 10-15% less performance buts make me wonder will it go as high as the duals under air ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

1MB x2, brutal.

I wonder how they're gonna compete with the 4MB L3 Phenom II 810/805, since that cache deficiency pretty much puts it even behind Agena wrt the majority of performance evals.

---

I think these will go against propus which has no L3, 810 should be closer to 920 than 150.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

I think these will go against propus which has no L3, 810 should be closer to 920 than 150.

---

I don't think so.

There's still a 910 which I guess 210 or below.

810 should be <180 (-30, blame cache), 805 at <160-170 (-10 to -20).

Still more expensive, but Propos should be much cheaper on the other hand, since it's relatively small enough to spam cheap. 100USD should be doable with a lower clocked version.

Propos is currently planned for 2.7 and 2.5. I'm estimating the 2.7 to launch at 130/140USD. The 2.5 at 120/130.

2.3. 110?

Well it is certainly nice for OC, should be an easy 4Ghz and nice cruncher CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

mmm, 13x multi, yummy!

---

Yes 13x, and with any luck will have E0 stepping cores, could be the ideal budget overclocker.

when quad cores cost 80 usd (and have a good OC potential) I will buy one :)

the phenom 9850be is already 150 usd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macadamia

I don't think so.

810 should be <180

Propos is currently planned for 2.7 and 2.5. I'm estimating the 2.7 to launch at 130/140USD. The 2.5 at 120/130.

2.3. 110?

---

So this 150-ish processor is going against the 180-ish not the 140$ one. I see... well possible if it performs on par with it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

So this 150-ish processor is going against the 180-ish not the 140$ one. I see... well possible if it performs on par with it. ;)

---

Yay for taking things out of context. :rolleyes:

Plus my pricing was done on assumptions that AMD wouldn't "roll the bin down" like what Intel just did. With rumours of a 3.1Ghz model they probably are.

I think Intel can downclock it a little and release Q7400, Q7300, Q7200 and even Q7100 and sell them for a very cheap price if they really want.

well this is excellent IMO with a fsb wall of 475 ish this will be better for overclocking then lets say q 9450 q 9550 if this processor scales and has a good stepping then yeah ill buy lets say its the E5200 of quad cores then hell this thing might be a beast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DFI pit bull

Yes 13x, and with any luck will have E0 stepping cores, could be the ideal budget overclocker.

---

yeah but how well will it perform when there is no cache left......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

yeah but how well will it perform when there is no cache left......

---

I remember the game tests from Pentium E reviews...The L2 castrated Conroe really suffers in games(much more in this type of apps than in anything else).

It's bad for gamers, but for normal use like Propos (if it uses K10 cores instead of K8) it should be good.


But for normal use there's no reason to go above a dualcore Core or K10.

Thermal Specification is 76°C too... A bit higher than normal Intel quads... Looks like Intel wants us to OC the crap out of these chips!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinas

Thermal Specification is 76°C too... A bit higher than normal Intel quads... Looks like Intel wants us to OC the crap out of these chips!

---

Like the E2xxx chips. cheap but great Overclockers with not much of a performance drop, and also good to see AMD once again competing in every segment except highend/extreme segment.

Wonder if anyone on this forum has an ES and could give us some more info

If these hit 4000 with reasonable volts I'll have to pick up at least 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

yeah but how well will it perform when there is no cache left......

---

We'll just have to wait and see then.

so nobody buying Q8200-Q9400s cause of lack of cache and no significant gains over the Q6600 so cutting cache and fsb seems real genius
should have droppd Q82-8300 prces and given us a 8mb cache 45nm around 175

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

so nobody buying Q8200-Q9400s cause of lack of cache and no significant gains over the Q6600 so cutting cache and fsb seems real genius
should have droppd Q82-8300 prces and given us a 8mb cache 45nm around 175

---

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

13x multi is cool, along with its price, but lets wait and see how bad (or not) the lack of cache will impact games and other tasks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I remember the game tests from Pentium E reviews...The L2 castrated Conroe really suffers in games(much more in this type of apps than in anything else).

---

Weren't those tests done where the GPU effect was minimised so we could see how the CPU's stack up?

Now normally I would regard this as quite a valid way to test a CPU's performance in gaming, but I was shocked to learn that apparently this isn't so when it comes to benchmarking PhII.

Maybe it is just the case that PhII's usefulness as a gaming CPU is best tested under GPU limited conditions and Intel budget CPU's when they are CPU limited. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

---

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

---

I think, not sure, that cellies have other problems like slower links and less bandwidth (and bit-width) between core and cache and etc............. Celeron is not just core equal with less cache. I thought Q7X00 was?

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I think, not sure, that cellies have other problems like slower links and less bandwidth (and bit-width) between core and cache and etc............. Celeron is not just core equal with less cache. I thought Q7X00 was?

---

Dunno about that man.....to me these dual cellys were like conroes with tiny caches, no virtualization, narrow FSB and (not sure) no 64bits support. The M-arch itself is derived from core duos IIRC.

The same logic holds true imo with e2*xx series aswell....they perform like 10% worse than e7*00 series clock/clock in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

---

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

i already thought quad cores were pretty ubiquitous.

well, now there is even less of an excuse to not have at least 4 cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

---

Oh I know that but I'm looking at it from Intel's perspective, the fact it could overclock to an excellent level is an aside for them and an advantage to us. I would guess that they are far more interested in getting a budget Quad on the market and less worried about its OC/performance potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

Oh I know that but I'm looking at it from Intel's perspective, the fact it could overclock to an excellent level is an aside for them and an advantage to us. I would guess that they are far more interested in getting a budget Quad on the market and less worried about its OC/performance potential.

---

I agree! Our (DIYers) portion of the market is too small to influence anything.

Yet it is kind of funny how new groups of Enthusiasts keeps getting created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Dunno about that man.....to me these dual cellys were like conroes with tiny caches, no virtualization, narrow FSB and (not sure) no 64bits support. The M-arch itself is derived from core duos IIRC.

The same logic holds true imo with e2*xx series aswell....they perform like 10% worse than e7*00 series clock/clock in games.

---

But all processors in that price range suck for a number of reasons. You get what you pay for many more times than not. You don't buy a Budget Processor, use mobo sound and a crappy Video Card for a Gaming rig.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Quote:

---

AMD, meanwhile, views the X2 as a boutique chip.

"Our desktop dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 products are priced based on performance," said Cathy Abbinanti, an AMD spokeswoman, when asked for comment on the pricing discrepancy. "Based on the performance benchmark information in recent third-party reviews of the competition's dual-core desktop product, we believe our lowest performing AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor will outperform Intel's highest performing dual-core part."
That's true, according to ExtremeTech tests. However, it may end up being a moot point.

"So while Intel is losing in the performance game, it may very well win in the perceived value side of the equation," analyst Loyd Case wrote in his review. "We're likely to see a host of relatively low-cost dual-core systems shipping in the near future. We'll have to see what AMD's response will be."

---

If it was the case then, it shoul still be the case now:up:

I dont know why people think this way I know some people who used to game for a living and they still game but only make it to some tourneys they use onboard sound good headphones and amazing mice but their cpu and video cards are just average at best. plus a budget cpu at 4.5 is not really a hinder on performance.

This huge multiplier is usually coupled with a low fsb wall, similar to the budget e5200. We'll find out once it launches what the average user gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

your taking this all wrong dude look at the E5200 800fsb 2mb cache dual core at 2.5 so 12.5x multi its an 80 dollar cpu but people have clocked it over 5ghz thats really average user isnt it the point people here are making is this might be the budget cpu that overclocks like mad

---

This won't clock that high, just like E5x00 doesn't clock as much as E7x00 and E8x00, unless you jolt 1.5V+ in it...

Plus budget chips usually have a low FSB wall, that's why they are sold as budget chips with a high multi, not because Intel wants you to overclock them... lmfao that's just stupid. Why do you think E5x00s hit FSB walls at 350 FSB, while E7x00 at 400+ and E8x00 sail at 500 easily...

And why do you think E8x00 can reach 4Ghz with ~1.3v, E7x00 need ~1.4v and E5x00, you will be lucky if you get there with ~1.5v. Intel just bins and sells accordingly, this cpu basically spells out "we got a lot of chips that aren't cut to be Q8x00s, so lets make money by making a new SKU".

Still, I got nothing against a $150 quad running above 3 GHz with practically stock voltage, but don't expect 4 GHz clocks...

I dont know man ive seen some beast E5200's get to 4ghz at 1.3v and some getting 4.8 but voltage goes way higher then for 24/7 use and some E5200 breaking 5ghz now the E5400 is unreleased and seems to be doing better another budget cpu Im just hopeful for this to be the E5200 of the quad cores because the E5200 is damn good IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG87

This won't clock that high, just like E5x00 doesn't clock as much as E7x00 and E8x00, unless you jolt 1.5V+ in it...

Plus budget chips usually have a low FSB wall, that's why they are sold as budget chips with a high multi, not because Intel wants you to overclock them... lmfao that's just stupid. Why do you think E5x00s hit FSB walls at 350 FSB, while E7x00 at 400+ and E8x00 sail at 500 easily...

And why do you think E8x00 can reach 4Ghz with ~1.3v, E7x00 need ~1.4v and E5x00, you will be lucky if you get there with ~1.5v. Intel just bins and sells accordingly, this cpu basically spells out "we got a lot of chips that aren't cut to be Q8x00s, so lets make money by making a new SKU".

Still, I got nothing against a $150 quad running above 3 GHz with practically stock voltage, but don't expect 4 GHz clocks...

---

QF Absolute T!

Then like in the case of the Celeron, even if the high MHz are reached, it still suck due to other features either that were removed or not fully implemented.

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drizzt5

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

---

I dont think they would compare stronger cache on the q6600 gives an advantage but I think we would have to wait for some testing results before speculating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

But all processors in that price range suck for a number of reasons. You get what you pay for many more times than not. You don't buy a Budget Processor, use mobo sound and a crappy Video Card for a Gaming rig.

---

Its an matter of opinion, but i disagree... e7*00 or e5*00 series CPU's clocked beyond 3.2Ghz or so are more than enough for most gamers. It wont bottleneck cards like 4850, 4870 and gtx260 in most games.

Disregard this cooment if u were talking about cellys and e2*00 series only :D They are slow clock/clock, and arent decent OC'ers in general...

Sorry for the OT, but at least it has to do with cache impact on performance :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

I remind the e7*00 series having an small impact due to smaller cache, but with the e4*00 series the impact was bigger...... With e2*00 and dual core cellys the difference is quite big.

Lack of cache does not matter much up to a certain point or task in question..... dual core cellys (conroes with tiny cache) are sometimes worse than athlon x2's clock/clock.

---

i remember a review saying it was because of the agressive branching, and because of the small L2 cache it was trashing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeertDB

i remember a review saying it was because of the agressive branching, and because of the small L2 cache it was trashing it

---

Yeah, seems like the m-arch is very cache centric according to the data out there.

Thats why I dont expect much from the q7500.... other than sheer value :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

I dont know why people think this way I know some people who used to game for a living and they still game but only make it to some tourneys they use onboard sound good headphones and amazing mice but their cpu and video cards are just average at best. plus a budget cpu at 4.5 is not really a hinder on performance.

---

Yet the difference between a casual Gamer's Rig and a Professional one is Day and Night. Emulating some Pro Gamer and missing out all of the multimedia games provide is kind of lame. It's like watching an Action adventure movie on a small Black & White TV, in Mono and weak reception.
I remember playing America's army online and being called a cheat I was using something that Processed OpenAL and EAX perfectly TYVM! I was told I had a "Wall Hack" because I knew--->where they were coming from, which way they were going be Up, Down in the next room and not the Hallway or etc.................................... I could tell if the person was laying, knelling or standing :rofl:!

Sure in those face to face shoot em' out you don't need it but I couldn't imagine playing HL2(all), Call Of Duty (all), MoH, Stalker and my other First Person Shooters with crappy Mobo sound:yuck: or Low res.

Last but not least, most of us use our rigs for much more than just games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Its an matter of opinion, but i disagree... e7*00 or e5*00 series CPU's clocked beyond 3.2Ghz or so are more than enough for most gamers. It wont bottleneck cards like 4850, 4870 and gtx260 in most games.

Disregard this cooment if u were talking about cellys and e2*00 series only :D They are slow clock/clock, and arent decent OC'ers in general...

Sorry for the OT, but at least it has to do with cache impact on performance :p:

---

I'm sorry too! Q7500 would still be enough for Games but most of us do more than just play games. There are Apps that are not cache dependent. I don't know but for me, Q9550 is what I'm watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easybeat

To me this is a move targetted at the average user and an Intel budget quad will be a good seller regardless of how it performs against phenom's or other Intel CPU's.

The magic word is 'Quad' and Mr Average always assumes more equals better in PC terms.

---

QFT
You will be seeing alot of these in retail consumer desktops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

---

Ok, I read that review and I found this:

Both CPU's were running on stock multipliers during the tests.

- Q6600 was running at 9.0 x 400FSB = 3.6GHz
- Q9300 was running at 7.5 x 467FSB = 3.5GHz

Just in case you don't know, you just can't compare the processors like that. That is why that review is trash.

In that review:

- Q6600 has the 100MHz raw clock advantage
- Q9300 has the advantage of a 67MHz higher FSB, AND A MUCH HIGHER CLOCKED MEMORY, since they were both on the same strap and divisor.

So, that review is garbage, is not apples to apples, you can't conclude anything from that review.
One way to compare both CPU's, for example, would be to set both of them to 3.5GHz (7x500). Both CPU's can handle a 7 multiplier and a 3.5GHz clock. And then since the FSB is the same, the memory speed would be the same too.

When a user posts a sh/t review like that, trying to make a point, is because he has no idea of what is going on.

[]'s
Simps

+1 simps garbage reviews are the worst if your going to take the time to do it atleast make it an even playing ground

Note the 512KB one is a singlecore.

The Q7500 would "equal" the E2160 in this cache scenario.

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/.../Gaming_03.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

+1 simps garbage reviews are the worst if your going to take the time to do it atleast make it an even playing ground

---

That review is so good (or that reviewer), that take a look at the vPLL he needed to set to have his Q9300 stable at 3.5GHz.
What a joke. That would kill the chip in about 1 week of 24/7 operation.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c...300/bios-2.jpg

[]'s
Simps

Default 1.51 New 2.0 result = sudden death ive seen lower pll on dual cores at 6ghz

I wouldnt but this chip, 2 MB L2? You can find plenty of Q6600s online for 150.....

It will be a good chip for OEMs. I have noticed that just like in the single core days the average hardware illiterate pc user just based performance off the Mhz, they now seem to only look at it as single, dual, or quad

2MB is 512KB per core. Isn't this castrating a bit extreme? Did Intel need to cut so much on the performance to make a decent priced quad-core?
The Q6600 can be found for about 150$ and it has four times that cache.

Oh well, maybe this kind of CPU will make sense when GPU computing becomes a reality, through DX11 or OpenCL.

Bah I've pretty much decided my next system will be a Dragon platform, anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simps

Ok, I read that review and I found this:

Both CPU's were running on stock multipliers during the tests.

- Q6600 was running at 9.0 x 400FSB = 3.6GHz
- Q9300 was running at 7.5 x 467FSB = 3.5GHz

Just in case you don't know, you just can't compare the processors like that. That is why that review is trash.

In that review:

- Q6600 has the 100MHz raw clock advantage
- Q9300 has the advantage of a 67MHz higher FSB, AND A MUCH HIGHER CLOCKED MEMORY, since they were both on the same strap and divisor.

So, that review is garbage, is not apples to apples, you can't conclude anything from that review.
One way to compare both CPU's, for example, would be to set both of them to 3.5GHz (7x500). Both CPU's can handle a 7 multiplier and a 3.5GHz clock. And then since the FSB is the same, the memory speed would be the same too.

When a user posts a sh/t review like that, trying to make a point, is because he has no idea of what is going on.
[]'s
Simps

---

Man where did all the &$^%ing ^%$ come from around here? :rofl::ROTF: It was SPECULATION. I gave the link because it wasn't meant as an Apples to Apples comparison. When you assume stuff you end up being the first 3 letters of the word.

Theory is OK, but these are two selling products, no, you don't handicap one for the sake of theory. Then you make a Ding Bat assumption from one review, :rofl: then take something out of CONTEXT! Then add insult to injury, you draw poor conclusions, something WRONGLY accuse me of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drizzt5

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

---

The consensus was wait for the reviews!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG87

This won't clock that high, just like E5x00 doesn't clock as much as E7x00 and E8x00, unless you jolt 1.5V+ in it...

Still, I got nothing against a $150 quad running above 3 GHz with practically stock voltage, but don't expect 4 GHz clocks...

---

Whatever man, don't hate! Even if it did 350 we're talking 4.5GHz!!! I think this will be the new 805d. :shrug: :shocked: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Man where did all the &$^%ing ^%$ come from around here? :rofl::ROTF: It was SPECULATION. I gave the link because it wasn't meant as an Apples to Apples comparison. When you assume stuff you end up being the first 3 letters of the word.

Theory is OK, but these are two selling products, no, you don't handicap one for the sake of theory. Then you make a Ding Bat assumption from one review, :rofl: then take something out of CONTEXT! Then add insult to injury, you draw poor conclusions, something WRONGLY accuse me of.

---

When you have no arguments, and need to write 10 lines that means absolutely nothing, means you just got owned. Rage detected!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simps

When you have no arguments, and need to write 10 lines that means absolutely nothing, means you just got owned.

---

You did take something out of context=P What, did you miss it as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i already thought quad cores were pretty ubiquitous.

well, now there is even less of an excuse to not have at least 4 cores.

---

agreed :up:

Too slow of a FSB. The 1066 FSB quads are bad enough...

http://www.nordichardware.com/Review...&skrivelse=514

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...tter,1709.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$:rofl: Q6600 has 8MB and Q9300 has 6MB yet Q9300 is faster even running less than Clock for Clock. It is more to it than cache size. 2MB is not enough and the AMD guys know this very well, LOL, jk. Honestly though, 2MB will have little to no affect on gaming unless you're multi-tasking. I will wait for the reviews but I'd be surprised to see negative affects due to cache. More times than not, faster clocked dual cores will run a game faster due to clock speed and Games not having more than one or two threads.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...uad-q9300.html

Keep in mind that Q9300 has less clock speed and cache than Q6600.

---

Theres a ton of reviews out there and still most people seem to opt for the Q6600 for OCing especiall with the price oh and the fact that in most reviews the Q9400 doesn't completely smoke it in all categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Theres a ton of reviews out there and still most people seem to opt for the Q6600 for OCing especiall with the price oh and the fact that in most reviews the Q9400 doesn't completely smoke it in all categories.

---

Agree, 8x multi, smaller cache and higher price (~50 bucks) tag doesnt help the q9400 much :up:

Id recommend an q6600 over it anyday :)

sweet! this'll be a nice CPU for an encoding rig :yepp: seeing as cache has hardly any affect on encoding :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Agree, 8x multi, smaller cache and higher price (~50 bucks) tag doesnt help the q9400 much :up:

Id recommend an q6600 over it anyday :)

---

3MB cache Wolfdale is slightly faster than 4MB cache conroe if both have same clock and FSB

check this
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...viewed/?page=1

So, a 6MB cache Yorkfield is slightly faster than 8MB keinstfield even if both have the same clock and FSB

edit: bloops :D

No Q7500 neither here nor here, although yesterday i did a couple of print-screens: this and this. Instead of Q7500 today popups Q9400S.....hm...this thread may become of little significance?

Yay the "Celeron" Quady :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollo

extra cache may make a big difference in games if you run at low gfx settings so you're getting hundreds of fps (eg.. ), but benchmarking game performance like that is misleading, you just turn the 'game benchmark' into a spi clone (10-20% performance difference due to cache alone). at realworld settings the difference between a q7500 and q9450 set to equal fsb & multi would be more like 1-2% (except for high end multi-gpu setups)

eg vaguely like the top 3 graphs on this page http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...er,1709-5.html

---

Which totally explains this (not).

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...es_11_Over.png

^^ E7300 outperformed E6700 in COD4, and GRID (at high resolution)

so the difference between Q7500 and the E1X00 in single threads would be something like the difference between E4400 and E5200 in that graph.

(still below E2XX0)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroon1

^^ E7300 outperformed E6700 in COD4, and GRID (at high resolution)

---

3 and 4 are negligible actually. Anything above 2 (per die) is ample for Core it seems. And that's Wolfdale vs Conroe too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Theres a ton of reviews out there and still most people seem to opt for the Q6600 for OCing especiall with the price oh and the fact that in most reviews the Q9400 doesn't completely smoke it in all categories.

---

You're right Q9400 doesn't always smoke Q6600. It is just plain faster though. You might be right about the Price to Performance ratio for games. That's why I opted for an E8400 but then other apps show that wasn't a great decision, not bad but could have done better.

Now my point was that there are other things to consider. Since Conroe first launched Intel has made other improvements each successive core. Cache alone is only one part of the equation. E7500 is a new core and its 3MB or whatever isn't the same as something like an Allendale or etc...... This is not only seen in the legit link I gave but also the one "Macadamia" shows that backs what I was saying. The original question was how does Q7500 compare to Q6600? The Question wasn't how does it compare normalize in relation to Q6600 as that other person mixed up:rofl:

E7500 looks like it might be a very nice bang for the buck budget processor but that depends the price/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Agree, 8x multi, smaller cache and higher price (~50 bucks) tag doesnt help the q9400 much :up:

Id recommend an q6600 over it anyday :)

---

I wouldn't recommend it any day. Why? Prices from MWave since they often have cheaper prices than Newegg.

INTEL core 2 quad q6600 (BX80562Q6600) 2.4ghz em64t quad core w/8mb cache 65nm 1066mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $186.50

INTEL core 2 quad q9300 (BX80580Q9300) 2.5ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $215.00 -$28.50

INTEL core 2 quad q9400 (BX80580Q9400) 2.66ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) (*While Supplies Last!) $223.50 -$37

Neither is $50 more expensive and both end showing a better bang for the buck. After spending that much money, then to worry about 28 and 37 dollars? Not saying you're wrong but just a difference of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I wouldn't recommend it any day. Why? Prices from MWave since they often have cheaper prices than Newegg.

INTEL core 2 quad q6600 (BX80562Q6600) 2.4ghz em64t quad core w/8mb cache 65nm 1066mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $186.50

INTEL core 2 quad q9300 (BX80580Q9300) 2.5ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) $215.00 -$28.50

INTEL core 2 quad q9400 (BX80580Q9400) 2.66ghz em64t quad core w/6mb cache 45nm 1333mhz lga775-pin retail boxed w/cooling fan (3 years warranty) (*While Supplies Last!) $223.50 -$37

Neither is $50 more expensive and both end showing a better bang for the buck. After spending that much money, then to worry about 28 and 37 dollars? Not saying you're wrong but just a difference of opinion.

---

Does the latest Q6600 overclock better than the Q9300 or Q9400 to make it worthwhile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Does the latest Q6600 overclock better than the Q9300 or Q9400 to make it worthwhile?

---

im sorry guys but you cant beat a q6600 overclocked to 3.8- 4ghz if lucky im sitting on a 3.8 and it blows smoke i tell you best £110 i spent on ebay :):up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Does the latest Q6600 overclock better than the Q9300 or Q9400 to make it worthwhile?

---

That depends, I'm going for Xtreme Quiet instead of overclocking. But from what I've seen Q6600 needs a 266MHz headstart to keep up with or beat the other two (most, not all apps). Q7500 will do alright with its small amount of cache IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroon1

3MB cache Wolfdale is slightly faster than 4MB cache conroe if both have same clock and FSB

check this
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...viewed/?page=1

So, a 6MB cache Yorkfield is slightly faster than 8MB keinstfield even if both have the same clock and FSB

---

Yes, but how about the multi and price difference ? these are the deciding factors to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Not saying you're wrong but just a difference of opinion.

---

Pretty much it...... I myself consider 9x multi the bare minimum for decent OC'ing, given the quads FSB wall. The price difference just enforce my q6600 choice.

On a side note, I speculate that, even tho the q7500 will be chocked bad by lack of cache (comparing to high end quads), it will still be much faster than high end duals in multi threaded scenarios ... So its not like it has no market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzfest05

Wonder if anyone on this forum has an ES and could give us some more info

---

I'll see what I can do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonucci

Pretty much it...... I myself consider 9x multi the bare minimum for decent OC'ing, given the quads FSB wall. The price difference just enforce my q6600 choice.

On a side note, I speculate that, even tho the q7500 will be chocked bad by lack of cache (comparing to high end quads), it will still be much faster than high end duals in multi threaded scenarios ... So its not like it has no market.

---

That's cool and it is a win win situation since Q6600 is no slouch. I just got through telling someone that Q7500 will be a better option that most Dual Core models.

The other reason I disagreed about the cache. I think if folks looking to use a processor in a way that eats up cache like; Multitasking, VT and etc.... shouldn't be in the market for a Q7500 and look at something like a Q6600, Q8200 or etc.... There will be apps or scenarios where Q7500 will choke but many others where it will not.

Thank you for the civil-ness of your post.:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

2MB is 512KB per core. Isn't this castrating a bit extreme? Did Intel need to cut so much on the performance to make a decent priced quad-core?
The Q6600 can be found for about 150$ and it has four times that cache.

Oh well, maybe this kind of CPU will make sense when GPU computing becomes a reality, through DX11 or OpenCL.

Bah I've pretty much decided my next system will be a Dragon platform, anyways.

---

Intel makes sure that their own product lineup won't fight with each other while the lower end processor eats the portion of higher end one.

I ran the celeron 1200 for a while when I was waiting for my q6600. It was fine, besides longer render./encode times the OC on it was fine and my machine ran fine, but it wasn't a gaming machine either, i bet that would have been very noticible, but i bet that 13x multi is very fun. I would buy this chip just ot play if it turns out to be a nice overclocker then after playing I would still have a decent chip,.... :surf:

modern X86 architecture actually needs a lot of software optimization to squeeze every ounce of power out of the microprocessor.
somehow, the benchmarking software do not actually reflect the actual performance of that particular cpu. The size of L2 cache is actually heavily depends on the architecture, especially the branch prediction and pipeline stages design. C2D is actually a well balanced design with adequate pipeline stages and branch prediction algorithm, that's why their L2 cache is so efficient.
Even AMD is to adapt the same L2 cache size of C2D, it will not be able to match C2D clock to clock with their K10 architecture.

I was under the impression that the core architecture was even more cache hungry than the k10...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

I was under the impression that the core architecture was even more cache hungry than the k10...?

---

It is, hence its price :p:


If it sells for 150 on launch, in a few days/weeks it will be even cheaper.

sounds good to me. cheap quads. there must be a downside though.

13x300? very interested to see the oc's for this one, and the cache limitations obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamsleath

sounds good to me. cheap quads. there must be a downside though.

13x300? very interested to see the oc's for this one, and the cache limitations obviously.

---

I think they've forgotten Post #73:D

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...6&postcount=73