Q7500, a budget quad core for under $150

[Simps]

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$ 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

[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

[Shintai]

Note the 512KB one is a singlecore.

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

[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

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.



[]'s
Simps

[Ozzfest05]

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

[fiveprime]

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

[G0ldBr1ck]

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

[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.

[Donnie27]

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? 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, then take something out of CONTEXT! Then add insult to injury, you draw poor conclusions, something WRONGLY accuse me of.

How will this new q7500 compare to the q6600?

The consensus was wait for the reviews!

[Vinas]

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.

[Simps]

Man where did all the &$^%ing ^%$ come from around here? 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, 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!

[Donnie27]

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?

[Corsa]

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

[breakfromyou]

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

[oohms]

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

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

[Glow9]

Naw, just as Q9300 had less cache and still kicked @$$ 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.

[Tonucci]

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

Id recommend an q6600 over it anyday

[tiro_uspsss]

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

[maroon1]

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

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

[hollo]

edit: bloops

[it_is_me]

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?

[s0lid]

Yay the "Celeron" Quady

[Macadamia]

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).

[maroon1]

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

[eXa]

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)