Intel 45nm Quads Q9300 in Europe on stock!

[OBR]

Today i ordered Q9300 from retail shop, some pieces was on stock ... but now all are gone ... but in another shops in Europe maybe can to buy! Check your shops ...

Price Q9300 @ 2.5GHz is 260 EUR!

PS. Revision is C1!

[RPGWiZaRD]

260 EUR for Q9300 with only 7.5x multi, no thanks. I'll keep my Wolfy.

Checked out german shops, doesn't seem to be in stock yet but at least it can be found a lot cheaper for ~230 EUR. Q9450 is listed for ~270 EUR at the cheaper sites.

[OBR]

260 EUR for Q9300 with only 7.5x multi, no thanks. I'll keep my Wolfy.

Thats first overpriced cpus ... next price will be lower ...

[Metroid]

Q9300
2.50GHz clock speed (7.5x Multiplier)
6MB L2 Cache

Demand can not meet stock as many suppliers do want to have one to market it.

It will be difficult to achieve up to 4 Ghz with this CPU Model.

I would rather buy a 9450 that costs only £15 more.

Q9450
2.66GHz clock speed (8x Multiplier)
12MB L2 Cache

Wolfdales for the win

Metroid

[OBR]

Yes i know, any from new Quads with low multis will not be a OC monster ... but Q9450 is not on stock now ... and no one knows when will be ...

[TEDY]

OBR you're full of money :P

[Cronos]

Q9300 is a cut down version of Yorkfield, why would anyone want it so bad is beyond me.

It is obviously worse than Q6600, any condition.

[FischOderAal]

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a299998.html

not availlable here

[G.Foyle]

Well, I think Q6600 is still alive and kicking

[Mekoa]

7.5x multi too low for my liking.

ETA of 10/03 and 19/03 (2 shops) for the Q9450 and Q9550 in the UK. Few extra quid well spent imo.

[Cold Fussion]

Q9300 is a cut down version of Yorkfield, why would anyone want it so bad is beyond me.

It is obviously worse than Q6600, any condition.

Bull. A q9300 will easily destroy a q6600 in video encoding.

[KoHaN69]

So when can I expect a 45nm quad @ 4ghz on air for under $300?

[Epsilon84]

Bull. A q9300 will easily destroy a q6600 in video encoding.

...with codecs that can take advantage of SSE4.

[Cronos]

Bull. A q9300 will easily destroy a q6600 in video encoding.

Little advantage SSE4 gives Q9300 can be easily compensated with higher clock of
Q6600.

[OBR]

Q9300 has default 2.5GHz it is faster then Q6600 on 2.4GHz! Bigger cache is better too ...

[[XC] NetburstXE]

Was does Europe always get new hardware before the States do?

[Sevenz]

Q9300 has default 2.5GHz it is faster then Q6600 on 2.4GHz! Bigger cache is better too ...

yes but at the end the Q6600 will get higher clock.

[JumpingJack]

Q9300 is a cut down version of Yorkfield, why would anyone want it so bad is beyond me.

It is obviously worse than Q6600, any condition.

Incorrect.

I will be faster than a Q6600.... hence, faster than a Phenom 9600.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_8.html#sect1

[JumpingJack]

Little advantage SSE4 gives Q9300 can be easily compensated with higher clock of
Q6600.

Q9300 is 2.5 GHz, Q6600 is 2.4 GHz ... last I checked 2.5 > 2.4.

[RPGWiZaRD]

I'd rather pick up a cheaper Q6600 G0 than Q9300 really. But I'm still favoring duallies due to the huge price difference between dual and quads yet and due to the fact that there ain't barely anything that would benefit my computer usage out there with a quad right now and when there will be then there's a lot better ones out than there is now. So for now Wolfdale FTW!

[JumpingJack]

I'd rather pick up a significantly cheaper Q6600 than Q9300 really. But I'm still favoring duallies due to the huge price difference between dual and quads yet and due to the fact that there ain't barely anything that would benefit my computer usage out there with a quad right now and when there will be then there's a lot better ones out than there is now.

Yeah, it is a trade off -- frankly, the 1K SKU pricing in a few weeks for these procs will end up at 270 for the Q9300 and 240 for the Q6600... the Q9300 will overclock easier, and run cooler... the nice thing is that it will bring the Phenom price for the 9600 down to the 200 mark or below... so a good argument can be made for the Phenom 9600 over the Q9300 as the performance delta is not necessarily commensurate with the price delta.

[Cronos]

Q9300 has default 2.5GHz it is faster then Q6600 on 2.4GHz! Bigger cache is better too ...

9300 has only 6MB cache, Q6600 8MB.
Low 7.5 multiplier means it will have lower clock.

It has an advantage of low power consumption. But again, why get cut-down version which apriory will be a poor OC'er ? Wait a little more and get full version with higher multiplier, Q9450. Q9300 must be banned from XS completely

[Slay0r]

9300 has only 6MB cache, Q6600 8MB.
Low 7.5 multiplier means it will have lower clock.

It has an advantage of low power consumption. But again, why get cut-down version which apriory will be a poor OC'er ? Wait a little more and get full version with higher multiplier, Q9450. Q9300 must be banned from XS completely

Q9300 has 6mb L2, Q6600 has 4mb not 8.

it's not a cut down version, it has higher factory clock and bigger cache and that's what matters to most who are going to build a none overclocked pc (90% of the computer users)

not only that, but have you overclocked one so to speak? probably not.. so you might wanna try one out before you "ban them from xs"

[Exedy]

Q6600 has 4mb not 8.

No, it has 8

[Slay0r]

No, it has 8

my bad, i originally thought q9300 had 6*2 versus 4*2 of the kentsfield, but it actually has 3*2.

still, don't bash it until you tried it