No Cheap Quad-Core Chips from Intel

[StyM]

source here

The major micro-architectural improvements for new Intel Core 2 processors, besides SSE4 instruction set, include the so-called Unique Super Shuffle Engine and Radix 16 technique. The Super Shuffle Engine is a full-width, single-pass shuffle unit that is 128-bits wide, which can perform full-width shuffles in a single cycle. This significantly improves performance for SSE2, SSE3 and SSE4 instructions that have shuffle-like operations such as pack, unpack and wider packed shifts. This feature will increase performance for content creation, imaging, video and high-performance computing. Radix 16 technique, according to Intel, roughly doubles the divider speed over previous generations for computations used in nearly all applications. In addition, Intel also improved virtualization technology as well as added some features to dynamic acceleration technology, which is supposed to boost single-threaded applications’ performance on multi-core chips.

no more price cut ...

[perkam]

Q9450 looks good enough, you don't need a price cut, not to mention the lack of competition means Intel doesn't need it either X(

Perkam

[Speederlander]

Q9450 looks good enough, you don't need a price cut, not to mention the lack of competition means Intel doesn't need it either X(

Perkam

Yup, or just wait a few extra months and let other 1600 fsb chips hit the market.

[deathman20]

Indeed thats hard to pass up at that price point with speed and cache to back it up.

[aiya]

i was hoping for a $200 quadcore. oh well time will tell.

[tsuehpsyde]

Q9450 is where it's at. I'd say for a quad core with 12MB of cache @ 1333MHz FSB, that's not too bad.

[antari]

A step back IMO, the "cheapest" quad-core goes from a 9x multi to a 7.5x multi and has less cache. The Q9450 isn't much costlier though (still only 8x but ) and the E8500 looks interesting...

[xlink]

i want dual core @ 3mb l2 cache on a 266 bus for cheap.
with virtualization.

PLEASE...

[MAS]

don't forget QX9770 3.2GHz has official 136 Wt TDP - that looks very suspicious

I wonder will Titan Amanda be able to keep quad's tempersture above 60C when overclocked up to 4GHz ?

[NickS]

Q9450 -- I'm praying it's available before December 25th but I'm starting to doubt it

[Nicksterr]

I will probaly go with the e8500. I don't need a quad-core for anything I do and I'd like to have maximum compatibility with all my programs, seeing as not many applications are quad-core optimized.

[pak]

Q9450 Looks damn good. I wonder how much more the cache will help.

--pak

[afireinside]

Super low multis, 1400 dollar top end. WTF! Hardware is getting out of hand

[Omastar]

Why are people so concerned about lower multipliers if new chipsets (X38 and beyond) can hit such incredible FSBs (600+ for 24/7)?

[heydo6]

e8200 and e8190 ? what they have different multi?

i sure like those high clocking lowend chips ... 100% oc sure would be nice

[Vapor]

Why are people so concerned about lower multipliers if new chipsets (X38 and beyond) can hit such incredible FSBs (600+ for 24/7)?

Who said they could?

And I think the only diff between E8200 and E8190 is the E8190 lacks TXT (and/or VT).

[Frodin]

E8400/8500 look good,but damn those are low multipliers on the quads

[BrownTown]

I'm not really sure why anyone would want a quad core that wasn't the top of the line. I mean its always gonna be alot cheaper to get less cores running at a higher frequency and that will win out in 98% of real life applications. The only reason you would want a quad core is if you were gonna go all out and get the most expensive CPU you can find.

Quad core is still nothing but e-penis so far as I'm concerned. Personally I think someone would be nuts to pass up on that 3G dual core to get a low end quad core that costs twice as much and will lose in all but the most massively parallel of applications (which isn't anything anyone ever users unless you do raytracing all day).

[Omastar]

Who said they could?

And I think the only diff between E8200 and E8190 is the E8190 lacks TXT (and/or VT).

Examine the trend in chronological order: P965 hit higher FSBs than 975X; P35 hit higher FSBs than P965; X38 will undoubtedly hit higher FSBs than P35. I was just tossing out a number for X38, and it may well not be able to do 600FSB, even on a dual core, but the trend is there. Maybe X48 will be the quad core savior.

Low multis on quads really shouldn't be a big point of contention as long as the chipset is up to clocking quads. I can do 445FSB on my Q6600 all day long on P35 with relatively low NB volts, so I assume X38 will improve upon this, being in the enthusiast segment.

[JVguest]

That list shows all Penryn based CPU's moved to January release at earliest. I thought Intel was releasing something in November, and given prices have been moving down on current C2D's, I think there will be more than an EE launch in November.

[hecktic]

isnt Q1 2008 the same as Jan 08 ?

[happychappy]

Who said they could?

People are getting 600+ fsb already on the maximus at least,

[antari]

Why are people so concerned about lower multipliers if new chipsets (X38 and beyond) can hit such incredible FSBs (600+ for 24/7)?

It's quite often the CPUs themselves having FSB walls... for example my Q6600 can only get up to 480FSB air with 4 cores and 540FSB air with 2 cores (subtract 10-15 for fully stable) on P35. I admit I don't have an X38 board to test but the people that have tried quadcore+X38 don't seem to be going much further. Of course there are gem chips that go far higher but more often than not people get "normal" chips.

No doubt the chipsets themselves are quite capable of it, and hopefully the new 45nm chips will have higher FSB walls.

[triple_A]

isnt Q1 2008 the same as Jan 08 ?

Jan 2008 = Q1 2008, but Q1 2008 is not Jan 2008.

get it?

[OzJustin]

I wonder how much impact the extra cache and fsb will really have.

If I go a Q6600 G0 in Nov then I'd be tempted to grab a Q9450 in Feb/Mar 08 perhaps. The question being, is it worth upgrading for 260mhz and whatever the cache/fsb bring?