Intel Core 2 Quad Q9505 in Japan

[onethreehill]

http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...5/newitem.html

[Leeghoofd]

It(s getting quite confusing now

[rado992]

Nope, Intel's just poking its C2Q lineup again. Completely unneeded move IMO as Q9550 is one of their best selling CPUs. They probably just have piles of crippled chips to get rid of. Ah well.. that's our Intel
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17489

[Olivon]

Waiting for reviews but the price seems to be a little bit too high according to onethreehill's link

[Nomadsoul]

@ rado992 - Its good move, Architecture wise Intel Yorkfield is way ahead than AMD Phenom II, above 2.83GHz chip competes against rivals 3.2GHz chip. and we all know overclocking capabilities of E0 stepping, 4-4.3GHz without any hassle. Now see how much AMD X4 955 is 24/7 overclockable, meh I see 95% people @ 3.7-3.8GHz. Better buy Phenom II X2 550 and unlock, or buy Core i7 IMHO !!! Its good upgrade for people who are stuck on S775 and dont wanna switch to DDR3 platform due to various factors.

[R101]

Price is exactly the same as i5-750..

[Bradan]

q9505? What's the 5 for?

[zanzabar]

@ rado992 - Its good move, Architecture wise Intel Yorkfield is way ahead than AMD Phenom II, above 2.83GHz chip competes against rivals 3.2GHz chip. and we all know overclocking capabilities of E0 stepping, 4-4.3GHz without any hassle. Now see how much AMD X4 955 is 24/7 overclockable, meh I see 95% people @ 3.7-3.8GHz. Better buy Phenom II X2 550 and unlock, or buy Core i7 IMHO !!! Its good upgrade for people who are stuck on S775 and dont wanna switch to DDR3 platform due to various factors.

york is not ahead of the p2, the yorkies are better at 32bit int work but they are worse in 64bit and floating point, and then there is the IO problems with the 775 that the am3 dose not have. and with half of the cashe gone alot of the advantages in int that are from a large on die cashe are gone.


im confused on why this is special its a neutered 9550

[Chad Boga]

Nope, Intel's just poking its C2Q lineup again. Completely unneeded move IMO as Q9550 is one of their best selling CPUs. They probably just have piles of crippled chips to get rid of. Ah well.. that's our Intel

In what sense are they crippled?

[kl0012]

york is not ahead of the p2, the yorkies are better at 32bit int work but they are worse in 64bit and floating point, and then there is the IO problems with the 775 that the am3 dose not have. and with half of the cashe gone alot of the advantages in int that are from a large on die cashe are gone.


im confused on why this is special its a neutered 9550

Clock-to-clock even crippled-cache Penryn faster then Phenom II in both, x64 & floating point. At least, last time I've checked reviews it was so. This thing is very good for overclocking.

[rockfella]

yes Yorkfield will simply crush Phenom II in clock to clock benchmarks Please post benchmarks or article link next time before spreading ur fanboyism. AMD has no chip to compete against Q9XXX @ 4.3GHz, to match You have to push PII above 4.8GHz I dont want badly coded game benchmarks where CPU hardly scales after 3.4GHz Gigabyte P45 UD3P + Q9XXX is best combo currently, $ : Performance wise.

york is not ahead of the p2, the yorkies are better at 32bit int work but they are worse in 64bit and floating point, and then there is the IO problems with the 775 that the am3 dose not have. and with half of the cashe gone alot of the advantages in int that are from a large on die cashe are gone.


im confused on why this is special its a neutered 9550

[Anarki]

So this Q9505 is the same as a Q9550 but with half the cache? (6MB instead of the 12MB on the 9550)

Hmmm it would need to be at least £40 cheaper than the Q9550 for it to be worthwhile IMO, especially with the new i5 and i7 chips hitting stores.

[rockfella]

^ Yes, Q9500 is the same as a Q9550 but with half the cache, Similar to Q9400-Q9450 differance.

Q9505 is the same as a Q9500 plus VT-d and TXT capabilities.

I hope Q9500, Q9505 are not R0. Q9400 6MB Yorkfield is R0.

[rado992]

In what sense are they crippled?

Q9500 and Q9505 are both made out of R0 chips so only 6MB cache, Q9500 also lacks VT and TXT.

Q9500 still doesn't exist in Intel's processorfinder, but Q9505 does:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLGYY

IMO launching two identical CPUs differentiated only by VT support is nonsense. Just launch the one with VT and TXT as Q9500 and don't launch the one w/o VT at all. These are still supposed to be high-end CPUs, aren't they?

[Chad Boga]

Q9500 and Q9505 are both made out of R0 chips so only 6MB cache, Q9500 also lacks VT and TXT.

Q9500 still doesn't exist in Intel's processorfinder, but Q9505 does:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLGYY

IMO launching two identical CPUs differentiated only by VT support is nonsense. Just launch the one with VT and TXT as Q9500 and don't launch the one w/o VT at all. These are still supposed to be high-end CPUs, aren't they?

I agree that it seems an uninspiring CPU compared to other options, I just thought though that when you said "crippled", you were implying it was a regular chip with a manufacturing defect that gets sold off under a different model number, like a number of AMD's chips.

[zalbard]

They probably just have piles of crippled chips to get rid of.

Probably trying to get rid of the last pieces of Core 2 silicon they have left, yep.

[Vozer]

Intel's Q9x00 series aren't crippled CPUs. They're 2 fully functional Wolfdale-3M glued together. The crippled ones are Q8x00 series.

Q9505 will be a good competitor to Phenom II X4 945, I guess.

IMO launching two identical CPUs differentiated only by VT support is nonsense. Just launch the one with VT and TXT as Q9500 and don't launch the one w/o VT at all. These are still supposed to be high-end CPUs, aren't they?

Completely agree. I really don't understand why they did that, considering both Q9300 and Q9400 support VT and TXT.

[PeterStoba]

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLGYZ

an S version too, with a 65w TDP

[insaneninjaguy]

I was looking at Intels processor search page and found something interesting.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Lis...774&SearchKey=

The Q9505 is a Quad core, but on the search page under the Core column there is a 2. Yet the Q9505S has 4 under the Core column.

[ubuntu83]

I was looking at Intels processor search page and found something interesting.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/Lis...774&SearchKey=

The Q9505 is a Quad core, but on the search page under the Core column there is a 2. Yet the Q9505S has 4 under the Core column.

It's a mistake

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLGYY