Print 39 comment(s) - last by roastmules.. on Oct 29 at 3:22 PM

Hark! Today marks the arrival of Intel's first 45nm desktop processor

To coincide with the NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GT launch scheduled for later today, Intel jumped the gun today with its immediate embargo lift on its high end 3.0 GHz 45nm quad-core Penryn QX9650 processor.

The Extreme Edition QX9650 desktop processor is Intel's first 45nm offering. True to Intel's "tick-tock" approach to processor design, all initial 45nm processor offerings will be process node shrinks of the Core 2 Duo architecture.  The only feature difference between these processors and the Core 2 Duo Kentsfield processors announced last year is the inclusion of additional L2 cache, SSE4 instructions and higher clock frequencies.

The QX6950 features 12MB of L2 cache, a 1333 MHz front-side bus and a 130W thermal envelope. 

The QX9650 will remain Intel's halo processor for the better part of 2008 until the introduction of the next, and possibly last, Core 2 Duo frequency bump.  In last 2008, Intel will replace its server and desktop architectures in favor of its next-generation architecture, dubbed Nehalem.

Intel representatives claim all media information about the QX9650 is now available for the public domain with the exception of the price.  Reviewers are allowed to post all embargoed information at midnight tonight. 

Previously leaked Intel roadmaps already indicated that the 45nm Extreme Edition will launch with the standard Extreme Edition price tag, $999.  Intel memos forwarded to DailyTech indicate the hard ship date for these new processors still remains November 12, 2007.  On this date, the company will lift the embargo on all 45nm desktop offerings.

Intel's 45nm offerings are not the only processors expected to launch this November.  AMD roadmaps also indicate the company's 65nm native quad-core Phenom processors will launch late November.  In addition to the new processors, AMD will also announce its RV670 graphics processor and RD790 chipset.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$1 Grand
By timmiser on 10/29/2007 12:40:45 AM , Rating: 1
So does anybody really buy these $1000 processors??

It doesn't matter how much money you make, I just have a hard time departing with a G for just the processor.

RE: $1 Grand
By Ringold on 10/29/2007 12:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
Every check out enthusiast fori, like Plenty of people do..

I don't understand Bentley's, either, but whatever floats peoples boat. I suppose if I made that much money I'd understand, eh?

RE: $1 Grand
By daftrok on 10/29/2007 12:57:19 AM , Rating: 1
Its just the initial price tag, as soon as the supply numbers increase and the demand remains low because of the price, a cut is sure to happen.

RE: $1 Grand
By afkrotch on 10/29/2007 1:11:32 AM , Rating: 1
Not with Intel. The price stays at $1000 and when a replacement comes, the original disappears from the market.

AMD on the other hand will do a price drop and keep producing them for a short while.

RE: $1 Grand
By daftrok on 10/29/2007 1:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
It saddens me how behind AMD has become over the years. The introduction of Core Duo really hurt them. AMD has come out with 65 nm processors, but how competitive are they with the Core 2 Duos? Now Intel has came out with 45 nm processors while AMD recently released 65 nm. I wonder how long it will be until AMD cracks under the pressure or until they surprise us all will a 32 nm processor.

RE: $1 Grand
By afkrotch on 10/29/2007 1:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
AMD is definitely getting hit hard with these lower prices. Intel can come away relatively unharmed, as they have the smaller process and can charge a lower price, while still maintaining a decent profit.

With luck Phenom will partially close the gap, but these 45nm C2Ds may open it back up to where it was before. It's all a wait and see game.

RE: $1 Grand
By FITCamaro on 10/29/2007 12:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
Well the good news is that AMD recently said they've got working 45nm samples. So they might have 45nm processors out by mid-year.

RE: $1 Grand
By XtremeM3 on 10/29/2007 1:40:56 AM , Rating: 4
It absolutely matters how much money you make. Money is relative. For instance...your current computer is what...1 week's salary? 2 weeks worth of salary? 1 month's? It's all relative. If someone were to clear say, 8-10 grand a month why not drop 1k on a processor. It's not as absurd as you make it sound. Same thing applies to cars, that's why some people don't bat an eye at buying a new beemer or benz. If there is one thing I've learned in life, it's that money is definitely relative.


RE: $1 Grand
By geddarkstorm on 10/29/2007 2:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Man, if you've got some secret for making that much money a month, please let me know.

RE: $1 Grand
By roastmules on 10/29/2007 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 4
Not much of a secret...
Education + experience + market = salary.

(Master's) Degree, IT/engineering, (Project) Managment, 10+ years experience, large Metro Area with high cost of living, certifications. Is one example relevant to most readers here at DT. An MD, JD, MBA etc. also will bring in that kind of salary. Some sales jobs do, as will a lot of jobs with unlimited overtime/holiday pay, and 70+ hours per week.

RE: $1 Grand
By Dactyl on 10/29/2007 4:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
So does anybody really buy these $1000 processors??

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: some people want to have the best possible CPU, and are willing to pay for it.

If Intel didn't sell "extreme editions," one of the OEMs would buy CPUs straight from in lots of 1000, bin them, and sell the best ones as "extreme" for $1k apiece, or sell them for $5k as part of a custom-built PC. Intel might as well be the one to bin them and sell at the high price.

Plus, there is the prestige factor. People see the $1000 CPU and assume that Intel chips are the fastest and that they're the best deal. For people who spend $100 on a CPU, AMD is currently the better deal unless you are overclocking.

More Changes
By MrTeal on 10/29/2007 1:04:37 AM , Rating: 5
The only feature difference between these processors and the Core 2 Duo Kentsfield processors announced last year is the inclusion of additional L2 cache and higher clock frequencies.

Does this processor not include the new SSE4 extensions?

RE: More Changes
By Smoza on 10/29/2007 1:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it does. The article is wrong i believe.

RE: More Changes
By KristopherKubicki on 10/29/2007 2:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that has been corrected.

RE: More Changes
By TechLuster on 10/29/2007 6:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
For the record, there are a few other (minor) IPC tweaks. Penryn sports a faster Radix-16 divider, as well as a "Super Shuffle Engine."

Sounds Good
By afkrotch on 10/29/2007 12:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like all is well for Intel right now. Should go out and find a price listing for their 45nm procs.

RE: Sounds Good
RE: Sounds Good
By afkrotch on 10/29/2007 1:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sweet. Thanks for that. Looks like I'll completely skip the Q6600 and go for the Q9450. Will have to replace my Asus P5W DH Deluxe, but that board has so many weird quirks that I should have replace it a while ago.

RE: Sounds Good
By Master Kenobi on 10/29/2007 7:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm rather pleased with my P5W DH Deluxe.

RE: Sounds Good
By FITCamaro on 10/29/2007 12:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm running one as well. Mine didn't overclock as much as I'd like, but I'm happy with my E6600 @ 3GHz. It doesn't need to be any faster.

Not Penryn?
By johnsonx on 10/29/2007 1:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
Is this Penryn or isn't it? I thought Penryn had all sorts of enhancements over current Core2 cores, with a not insignificant performane increase, but in the article above you say:
The only feature difference between these processors and the Core 2 Duo Kentsfield processors announced last year is the inclusion of additional L2 cache and higher clock frequencies

I realize this isn't the radically different Nehalem architecture, but if this is in fact Penryn we're talking about then the above quote really waters it down.

RE: Not Penryn?
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 1:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
It is Penryn although DT forgot to mention that it adds SSE4 and a new divider.

Non Extreme Lineup
By BlitzAceYuna on 10/29/2007 7:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'd really wished that Intel would release the Non-Extreme variants this holiday season. Really wanted to build a new PC by this year.

I guess it isn't going to happen soon though. They'd probably want to milk that $999 cow for as long as they possibly could.

RE: Non Extreme Lineup
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 9:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
Intel plans to introduce 15 new 45nm processors by the end of the year and another 20 in the first quarter of 2008.

By SunAngel on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 1:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
Intel are being overly conservative with that number. Just have a look at the Tech Report review (, ) and you'll see that Intel have really dropped power usage.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 1:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
In fact, the power usage of a QX9650 is the same as a current Dual Core E6750. I'd say that's darn impressive.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By SunAngel on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 2:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
I just told you the facts. Intel are giving it a 130W rating but it is extremely extremely conservative. Just look at ALL the reviews, they'll say the same thing.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 2:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
That being, power consumption has dropped dramatically. This no mere 1-2W in difference which could be an experimental difference. You're actually consuming less power by using this chip than using a 65nm dual core Core 2 Duo with a slower clock speed.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By twjr on 10/29/2007 4:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
Agree totally. Just look at the Anandtech article. The QX9650 comsumes roughly as much power at load as the QX6850 does at idle. If nothing that shows that the 130W TDP is overly conservitive.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By IntelUser2000 on 10/29/2007 7:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agree totally. Just look at the Anandtech article. The QX9650 comsumes roughly as much power at load as the QX6850 does at idle. If nothing that shows that the 130W TDP is overly conservitive.

This very likely means faster clocked models are purposely held back. Look at how all E6000 models have same TDP, yet consume different amounts of power. The 130W represents the highest model, which isn't here and may never be.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By The Jedi on 10/29/2007 9:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty exciting when you think about runing dual LGA771 extreme's in a V8 Skulltrail system.

But, these are thousand dollar CPU's, so who really ever buys these anyway? Good googley goo.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 8:53:30 AM , Rating: 3
This from a review-

We used a plug-in power monitor to check the power draw for our test system and found that Penryn was consistently more frugal with the juice. At idle, Penryn uses 45W less than Kentsfield at 3GHz, although the gap is reduced when you overclock. That’s a huge percentage of the total power draw, dropping the figure from 155W (minus display) to 110W.

In PCMark05, the system is loaded fairly evenly and once again the difference was 30-45W in favour of Penryn. Finally, we come to POV-Ray where the quad-core processors were running flat-out and the power draw was highest of all with a difference in power consumption of 55W at a 3GHz clock speed. When we overclocked the difference was, once again, 30W.

Penryn is a step forward from Kentsfield that offers moderately better performance in day-to-day tasks but when you give it a sniff of SSE 4 it shows a distinct benefit. The much-reduced power draw is very encouraging too. You’d be crazy to spend £649 on the Core 2 Extreme QX9650, but you should most definitely choose a Penryn-based Core 2 Duo or Quad over an older, 65nm model

RE: Good-googley-goo
By JSK on 10/29/2007 5:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
The lower end models of these, 9550, 9450, 9300 will have a 95W TDP, thats were the real money is when those hit in january.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By MS on 10/29/2007 8:39:20 AM , Rating: 2
In reality, the QX9650 draws about 1/3 at idle and about 1/2 under full load compared to the QX6850. That is isolated CPU power instead of system power. We measured 21W at idle and 68W under full load BEFORE the VRM which corresponds to roughly 14W and 50W true CPU power, respectively.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By DallasTexas on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good-googley-goo
By erikejw on 10/29/2007 9:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
I Idle mode it is like 4.5W and that is very good.
It is much lower than 130W at 100% load too.

Guess they just want to have 130W since it is an extreme edition and many will overclock it.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997
Related Articles
Intel Slates "Nehalem" for Q4 2008
October 26, 2007, 10:58 AM
AMD Sheds Additional Phenom Details
October 15, 2007, 10:48 AM
Intel Preps 45nm Quad-core Desktop Launch
September 28, 2007, 4:44 AM
"Nehalem" Taped-out and Running Windows
September 18, 2007, 12:04 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki