backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by jlewis223.. on Oct 10 at 2:52 PM

Intel's Extreme Edition "Yorkfield" processor will launch on November 12; sub-3.0 GHz variants will launch in the first half of January 2008

Intel’s latest roadmap reveals upcoming additions to its desktop processor lineup. Unfortunately, anybody awaiting a straightforward naming convention will need to hold out a bit longer as the processor numbers for desktop Yorkfield and Wolfdale chips complicate the naming situation even further.

The launch of an Extreme Edition version of a chip before mainstream offerings follows Intel’s modus operandi, and as such the rest of the Penryn family will not be seen until the first half of January 2008. The company ambiguously names January 2nd through 20th as the slated launch date for the processors, though companies generally tend to time launch events with trade shows.  The 2008 International Consumer Electronics Show starts on January 7, 2008.

Yorkfield Quad-Core Desktop - 1333 MHz FSB

Model
Core
Frequency
TDP
L2 Cache
Launch Price

QX96503.0 GHz 130W
12MB
$999

Q9950
2.83 GHz 95W
12MB
$530
Q9450
2.66 GHz 95W
12MB
$316
Q9300
2.50 GHz 95W
6MB
$266

The first of the new desktop processors, the quad-core Yorkfield-based QX9650, will be released on November 12 at an expected price of $999. The operating frequency of Intel's highest end 45nm quad-core at launch will be 3.0 GHz.

Desktop Penryn processors will not launch with the 1600 MHz front-side bus.  Intel's halo enthusiast Skulltrail V8 platform uses 1600 MHz workstation processors on a server-class motherboard and chipset.

The Intel Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 will be the first of the mainstream Yorkfield offerings. At $266, the 45nm 2.50 GHz Q9300 replaces the 65nm 2.4 GHz Q6600.

Wolfdale Dual-Core Desktop - 1333 MHz FSB

Model
Core
Frequency
TDP
L2 Cache
Launch Price

E85003.16 GHz 65W6MB
$266

E84003.00 GHz 65W6MB
$183
E8200
2.66 GHz 65W6MB
N/A


Intel guidance also suggests an intermediate SKU between E8400 and E8200, aptly named the E8300. This processor will eventually replace the 2.83 GHz dual-core processor previously named E8200.  Since the E8300 and E8200 specifications are not set in stone, neither is the final pricing.  Intel's lowest price-point for dual-core 65nm is $163, and it's safe to wager that the E8300 or E8200 will also carry the same pricing.

Before Intel's media-blitz on November 12, the company will silently launch the 65nm 2.4 GHz dual-core E4600 Conroe processor on October 21, 2007.


Comments     Threshold


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

AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By Targon on 9/28/2007 7:34:14 AM , Rating: 1
It should be interesting at that point to see performance compared to Phenom X4. If AMD is able to launch the Phenom X4 at 3GHz speeds, then 45nm or no 45nm, it will come down to price vs. performance. AMD will only be around six months behind Intel when it comes to 45nm as well, so if AMD can ramp the speeds of their process improvements quickly, 2008 should be a VERY interesting year.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/28/2007 7:40:51 AM , Rating: 3
AMD hasn't even taped out a 45nm design yet to my knowledge, and that is usually a year behind production.


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By GlassHouse69 on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
By TheGreek on 10/4/2007 4:26:35 PM , Rating: 1
Ask your doctor about lithium.


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By Misty Dingos on 9/28/2007 7:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
I hope it will be an interesting year. It would be great if AMD can get back in the game fully. If they can't get a truly competitive processor out there we are likely to have to wait another 18 months for them to try and catch up again.

But all the super processor talk aside. I am really starting to think that hardware is so far ahead of the software now that it now a real factor in whether or not I would think about building a new system. How many programs can effectively make use of two let alone a four core processor? And it is my understanding that game software is even farther back.

But one cannot slow down the hardware guys. I really don't want to either. Catch up soft heads!


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2007 8:26:18 AM , Rating: 5
For the average consumer, very little. But for people into video encoding, 3D animation, gaming, etc. quad core processors are a godsend.


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By omnicronx on 9/28/2007 10:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
So true, I can hardly ever get 2 cores at load let alone 4. And most games are not multithreaded either, which in my mind is the only use for 4 cores for the average consumer.


By Pirks on 9/28/2007 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't Crysis supposed to change that? I heard it scales beyond two cores. Has anyone heard something concrete about this game's CPU scalability?


By sdsdv10 on 9/28/2007 9:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And most games are not multithreaded either, which in my mind is the only use for 4 cores for the average consumer.


I don't know about that. I consider myself an average consumer using the $95 Sony Movie Studio software for editing digital home videos. The program can generate 4 threads and load 4 cores (as I believe can Pinnacles editor).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


By DeepBlue1975 on 9/28/2007 1:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
So true.
I went from an a64 3200+ to a q6600...

Now I can decode whatever I want in just a few minutes(decoded 4 1gb ratdvd files into full blown 4gb dvds, all at the same time, in less than an hour... the amd machine took more than that to reach half a single file and then ratdvd crashed, could never decode a single ratdvd file on the athlon)

Winrar seems instantaenous in comparison, I no longer get bored of waiting to decompress a 2gb file compressed and split into 150+ files, it just takes something like 2 minutes or even less to do that now and the machine keeps being as responsive as if it were doing nothing at all, while the AMD machine not only took a much longer time, but also rendered my machine almost unusable unless I put the process in the lowest priority, running in background, and hence taking an eternity to complete...

As for games, I don't know yet as I haven't played any... Seems I'm becoming too old for games, but I do play very old DOS games in my PDA :D


By Targon on 9/28/2007 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 3
While multi-threaded applications are still few and far between, there is more of a use for dual and quad core processors than many people realize.

There are two factors, the speed of individual applications, and then you have system performance. Even if most applications are single threaded, a multi-core processor will allow the different applications to run on different cores.

So, your anti-virus might sit on one core, other background applications might be spread out on other cores, and the main application you want to run will then have a larger percentage of whatever core it may run on(if it is single-threaded). In the past, with only a single processor core, your anti-virus, background applications, and the main program you want to run were all forced to share the same core. This might leave you with only 80 percent of the CPU resources for the program you really want to run. With dual-core, this might get bumped up to 90 percent available(with a single-threaded program), or higher.

Going to Windows Vista adds a LOT more to what goes on in the background, so everything seems a little slower. So, quad-core would more than balance out the increased operating system demands on the CPU.

If we were in an age of lean and mean operating systems that didn't do much behind the scenes, then dual and quad core processors would be overkill for most people. As time goes on though, it seems that we NEED the extra cores just to handle all the excess garbage that Microsoft puts into their operating systems.

It also takes roughly four to six years for a modern application to be designed from scratch. As a result, the move to multi-threaded application design even if it started when the Athlon 64 X2 and Pentium D first were released would only start showing up at around this time. Most applications are based on previous work as well when it comes to game engines and updated versions of software. So, did Office 2007 start as an all new project, or was it based on Office 2003, which was based on 2001, etc. Since so much of the new versions are based on single-threaded applications from years ago, there is a great chance that the new versions are also only single-threaded.


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By IntelUser2000 on 9/28/2007 8:15:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It should be interesting at that point to see performance compared to Phenom X4. If AMD is able to launch the Phenom X4 at 3GHz speeds, then 45nm or no 45nm, it will come down to price vs. performance. AMD will only be around six months behind Intel when it comes to 45nm as well, so if AMD can ramp the speeds of their process improvements quickly, 2008 should be a VERY interesting year.


We should have heard of tape-out of AMD's 45nm CPUs if they'll be ready by same time next year. With process tech, you can't just fast forward it just like that. Despite all the rumors the time gap between process tech has been approximately two years, both for AMD and Intel. They say second half of 2008, which can be anything from June to December. Same was said for 65nm, look how they are still not fully ready yet.


By killerroach on 9/28/2007 8:45:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They say second half of 2008, which can be anything from June to December.


Actually, it would be July 1 to December 31, but point taken.

All things considered, however, the Q9450 might be a pretty intriguing option, as would the Q9300.

To the writer of the article, however, shouldn't that Q9950 be "Q9550"? Seems weird that a hypothetical 9950 would be clocked noticeably below the QX9650...


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By JumpingJack on 9/28/2007 9:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
You are being very optimistic, you are taking AMD's 2nd half 2008 launch and pegging that at April/May. We haven't even heard of a working Shanghai chip let alone a volume ramp of Barcelona.

AMD is a year behind, they will be lucky to produce a 45 nm CPU for sale in 2008. It took them 29 months to turn 65 nm around (launch of 90 nm to launch of 65 nm), 45 nm in 18 months? Very optimistic.


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By JoKeRr on 9/28/2007 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
The TDP of those dual core processors seem really high, 120W to 80W, where as most core 2 duals today are rated at 65W. Maybe it will come down with future stepping? Any thoughts?


RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By Shintai on 9/28/2007 2:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
Its an error. They are 65W and the 3.16 is also in a 40W LV version for the server segment.

Lots of errors in the article. :/


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/28/2007 2:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
This has been corrected -- thanks.


By misuspita on 9/30/2007 9:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Are these dual-core CPU's gonna be compatible with older boards supporting the "old" E6000 series?


By jeromekwok on 9/28/2007 2:08:22 PM , Rating: 1
How can you say that when there is no competitive 65nm products from AMD today, when Core 2 has been around for a year. Top speed Athlon X2's are still on 90nm, Barcelona on 65nm sucks at 2GHz.

I don't think we should expect AMD to roll out 45nm in 2008. AMD needs to keep capacity to make enough 65nm CPUs, and it is not financially possible to take another risk to rush 45nm.

It is only possible if IBM, Samsung or Chinaman take over AMD.


I Can't...
By Quiescent on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: I Can't...
By Martimus on 9/28/2007 9:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
What made you decide to get the Sony DVD burner? I am trying to decide what burner to get for my roommate, and my old stalward Plextor has really let me down the last time I went with them, but I am wary of Sony after many bad past experiences.

Also, why the Enermax Infinity 650W PSU at $170, when you can get a PC P&C 750W for the same price? I have had too much trouble using lesser power supplies, that I am done trying to find value in the area. I'll just go with the best quality one, and it is the same price as the one you picked.


RE: I Can't...
By Quiescent on 9/28/2007 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 1
The person was using AutoCAD 3D for mapping out mines. He didn't really need a nice DVD burner. Perhaps at the time (This system was bought to build about 2 months ago) it was different. However, you shouldn't buy a powersupply that is in excess of wattage unless you plan on doing any upgrades and stuff like that. If you go to newegg.com and look at the specification of videocards, it will tell you the minimum wattage it needs from a powersupply. It said 450w for my videocard, however I have a 430w powersupply. I always newegg for that reason because it's the only place I've seen to show the minimum wattage needed for those. You can just kind of figure out if you need anymore than that by what else you have.


RE: I Can't...
By tspinning on 9/28/2007 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 1
Not trying to start the ole' PS packaging spec issue, but my best resource for power supply info of late has been [H]ard OCP. These guys test power supplies like they should be tested, provide real results, and put great shame to most manufactures who downright lie on the boxes.

anyway check em' out!
http://www.hardocp.com/

All their reviews are no bullshit which is great, even if the item comes from a manufacture who advertises on their main page, if the item doesn't live up to the expectations or stats on the box, they are dunzo

made me think twice, thrice and forth about going with anything they haven't tested and given a good review after I saw what happened in their amazing review of budget power supplies, again take a min and check it out!!

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzOSwsLG...


RE: I Can't...
By deeznuts on 9/28/2007 12:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sony DVD burners are repackaged/relabeled right? I forget which manufacturer, they're not bad though.

But before Hardocp started reviewing PSU's, Jonnyguru and Xtremesystem forums are what I used. XS forums have a forum just for PSUs. Hardocp likes to do something done already, and then proclaim they are the best since they are the first to think of it!

http://www.jonnyguru.com/ - I believe Jonny just retired though, which sucks. But I thought I read his site will go on, I'm not sure. Anyways I ended up with the Corsair 620, excellent PSU.


RE: I Can't...
By Oregonian2 on 9/28/2007 3:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Recently Sony and NEC joined in a joint venture for DVD burner drives.

I recently gave up on my beloved Plextor too, they seem to have given up the high end market and 8-MB buffers.

Picked a Pioneer 112D one. Seems to be working well.


RE: I Can't...
By mikeyD95125 on 9/28/2007 6:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe LiteOn OEM's for Sony.


RE: I Can't...
By Quiescent on 9/28/2007 7:13:26 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty funny. LiteOns are the ones that a person I know uses. With that, a 10k rpm harddrive, and a dual core processor, they can burn DVDs in a matter of 4 minutes. And they do this about 5-30 times every day. With this, they've had these DVD burners for two years.


RE: I Can't...
By InsaneScientist on 9/28/2007 10:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
It is LiteOn :)

I've been absolutely amazed by the quality of their drives...
I've got a computer in my home that's about 6 years old at this point... it normally has 3 drives in it, I've replaced 2 of them several times, and the 3rd one is an old 12x10x32x LiteOn CD-RW that won't die... I actually kinda want it to die now so I have an excuse to upgrade it to a DVD burner, but it won't go away. :D

Now when I buy optical drives, I won't go with anyone else. :)


RE: I Can't...
By MaK2000 on 9/28/2007 11:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
I have all Sony DVD drives in my home. Comes out to 3 Sony DVD Burners and 4 DVD ROMs. I haven't had a single one go down on me. The first 16x burner I got was $280 a few years ago and it still works. Nothing more than a lens cleaning every once in a while. I think DVD drives are to the point that it is very easy technology to make for very low cost. Anything should be fine.


RE: I Can't...
By Martimus on 9/28/2007 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your stance on Power Supplies, but then I used to design them (Although for microcontrollers, not computers). I had one power supply kill my motherboard (it was kind of cool to see the black smoke come out of the back though), and I have had nothing but problems when I try to add a third HD to any of my computers. Most PSU's just don't have enough power on the 12V rail to support enough optical and magnetic drives. If you throw in a new HD because your old one is full or making noise, and you want to transfer the data over, it is a crapshoot whether you can get the drives to work properly. PSU's aren't the only culprit, but it is an easy one to fix.


RE: I Can't...
By calyth on 9/28/2007 1:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the sentiments on the power supplies (i.e. I disagree also with Martimus' parent post).

It's always good to have the extra power, because although newer power supplies are less shady, older power supplies of unknown/shady/curious origins have blown plenty of computers. We have an super-old instrument computer with a dual P3 on an Abit board, with a power supply that I've seen blown before. After one weekend, someone reported the instrument computer won't boot, and when I touched the casing, the power supply was excessively warm. When I opened it up, I found the ATX cable charred and the video card has a large charred spot. I think the layered PCB on the video card curled apart at the charred spot.

Even if that isn't exactly a PSU failure, I've personally seen enough computers die with shady power supplies, even though there was no real reason why the computer would overload the PSU. My old Enermax 450W, which served me from my Duron 700 days to an AthlonXP 2500+, died rather gracefully with the 12v falling out of spec, instead of being blown and billowing smoke.

Power supplies, cases, and heatsinks are often-overlooked parts when people build their computers.


RE: I Can't...
By Martimus on 9/28/2007 2:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you disagree with about my parent post. I didn't think that I contradicted it with the post you agreed with. I was wondering what I said that you disagree with?

Enermax may have a very good PSU, but I don't know as I have never had one. That was why I asked why it was chosen. I wanted to know the quality of such a PSU. She answered without mentioning the quality, so I still don't know. That was the same question about the Sony burner. I really just wanted to know if that model had better quality than my previous cd drives by Sony (those were quite a while ago, when I thought that Sony would have high quality. They managed to prove me wrong, and I have since learned not to trust reputations, because they are not always earned.) The last burner I bought was a Plextor 18X burner, but it has since died on me. It may be under warantee as I bought it not long ago, but I don't want to replace it with another of the same model. I have found little on DVD Burner reviews, so I was hoping to get some light shed on a good model burner to get.


RE: I Can't...
By JonnyDough on 9/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: I Can't...
By tjr508 on 9/28/2007 12:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
I will never buy a sony optical drive. My Sony DVD burner crapped out on me and needed a firmware update to be fixed. Turns out a thousand other people had the same problem but Sony wouldn't write an update for it. Luckily some research showed that Lite-On made the drive and since they care about their customers, they made an update. The process then involved flashing the drive name to Lite-on so it would take the update.


RE: I Can't...
By Quiescent on 9/28/2007 1:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
My DVD burner is pretty nice. It's not decent. It's a LITE-ON DVDRW SHW-160P6S. The ones that I have shown else where is LH-20A1S OEM BK and the LH-20A1L-05. You can google these model numbers to get more information on them.


RE: I Can't...
By tjr508 on 9/28/2007 10:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I will not even think twice about Lite-On, they have great support. It just kills me that sony wouldn't support a two-year-old product that had a very common defect. I had to use some "hacking" tool to make my computer think my drive was a Lite-On branded drive just so I could flash it with the Lite-On software. It works great now, but it was a tremendous ammount of work and should have only taken 5 minutes max if sony would actually support their hardware. I mean how hard is it to release a fix for a very common problem when Lite-On already did all the work in creating the fix?


RE: I Can't...
By calyth on 9/28/2007 1:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
There are lots of reviews out there for PSUs. My old Enermax work well, and failed rather gracefully. I have an Antec that never gave me a problem. Leave yourself some extra room for the power couldn't hurt your computer.

I wouldn't know a thing about Sony burners, cause I don't really go for anything Sony anymore. I wouldn't touch LG burners though. I've 2 of them fail excessively quickly.


RE: I Can't...
By Martimus on 9/28/2007 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
My Antec Tru-Power 450 was the one that destroyed my MB, about 5 years ago. I got it after a good review on Fingsquad, and it failed within 2-3 months. I even went through looking for shorts or sources of failures, and found none. (At that time I worked at Delphi, and I regularly did system fault analysis on electronic boards, so I was pretty good at it.) I finally concluded that the Power Supply just died. I think I had a somewhat dirty electrical signal in my apartment at the time, so that may have been why it happened.

I didn't really learn my lesson though, as I bought another Antec Power supply after that; although I bought the higher model "Neo-Power". It has given me problems when I have too many drives attached. It may be a MB problem as well, but I am not sure. The next PSU I buy will be a PC Power and Cooling though, even though they are expensive. I have never heard anything but fantastic things about their quality, so I will try it out myself.


RE: I Can't...
By jonmcc33 on 9/28/2007 11:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you going to buy a 750W PSU when you'll never use that much power anyway?


RE: I Can't...
By Martimus on 9/30/2007 10:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when people would say "Why are you buying a 300W power supply when you will never use that much power anyway?" Or "Why get a 1GB hard drive when you will never be able to fill up half that much?" Really, why would you want anything like those? The truth is, that I found I need more power to support future additions. Especially for new drives.


Q6600 vs Q9300?
By Sagath on 9/28/2007 8:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Intel Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 will be the first of the mainstream Yorkfield offerings. At $266, the 45nm 2.50 GHz Q9300 replaces the 65nm 2.6 GHz Q6600.


The Q6600 is 2.4 GHz, not 2.6. So your actually gaining 100mhz for the same pricepoint by buying the Q9300. I just wonder how well it will overclock compared to those B3/G0 Q6600's. If it doesnt hit 3.2+ consistantly on air, the Q6600 could still be the better enthusiast buy.




RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By B166ER on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By Treckin on 9/28/2007 12:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
what?


RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By B166ER on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By Dactyl on 9/28/2007 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 5
(Begin Translation of previous post into English)

It is true that the Q6600 is a known quantity. Its potential for overclocking is well-established.

However, it is my personal belief that the 45nm part will be able to achieve similar or higher clocks, because it is 45nm. I don't have evidence for this, but I expect it would be true.

Even if the 45nm part only clocks up to 2.8GHz, I will be most grateful that it is inexpensive and that I got "something for nothing"--300MHz of overclock. It pleases me greatly when I am able to overclock my processors.

(End Dactyl Form Translation Service)


RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By B166ER on 9/29/2007 12:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you!


RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By B166ER on 9/29/07, Rating: 0
Is that pricing legit?
By Upstone on 9/30/2007 5:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but the pricing they have said seems absurd. why charge alot less buck for more bang?

Q9450 costs less than a current Q6600, but is 260mhz faster and 4mb cache more plus the 45nm rather than 65.

the e8500 less than the e6850?!




RE: Is that pricing legit?
By coldpower27 on 10/1/2007 2:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Q9450 is 50USD more expensive then 1000Unit quantity price for the Q6600 right now is $266 still.

They are giving you more bang per buck at each level.

E6850 gets replaced by E8500. +166MHz, +2MB LV2 cache.
E6750 gets replaced by E8400. +333MHz, +2MB LV2 cache.

Q6600 gets replaced by Q9300. +100MHz, +266FSB -2MB LV2 cache.
Q6700 gets replaced by Q9550. +166MHz, +266FSB +4MB LV2 cache.

$316 for a Quad Core is a totally new price point.


RE: Is that pricing legit?
By Upstone on 10/2/2007 6:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
yeah thats cheap, but think how cheap the older ones will become. yeah $316 great, but if thats how much the q6600 is now, so it will become alot less.

they are selling the more powerful chips for less money than their less powerful ones now. and with no competition with amd, seems pretty mad. Instead of AMD forcing thier own prices down, THEY will force thier prices down. I guess it will destroy all AMD market?


Intel Quadcore: 65nm vs 45nm = SAME TDP ONLY????
By Blackraven on 9/30/2007 11:03:10 AM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't it be that once you go lower on the manufacturing node, your thermal envelope should be lower thus giving lesser heat and lesser power consumption???

Anyone care to explain??? (I am willing to learn & be enlightened)




By coldpower27 on 10/1/2007 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how aggressive you go, you get lower heat/lower power at the same performance level pretty much guaranteed, as long as your not changing the architecture too dramatically.

E8500 is still 65W even though it's 166MHz quicker then the E6850. That's an improvement.

Q9550 is still 95W even though it's 166MHZ quicker and 1.33GHZ FSB compared to the Q6700 now. So there is some improvement.

Intel from these SKU's doesn't seem to be going to aggressive, so we will have to wait for Phenom, and hope they are good enough so that Intel has reason to make Penryn better.


Wow so many errors!!
By coldpower27 on 9/28/2007 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 3
I can't believe the amount of errors on this site, with regards to the Wofldale and Yorkfield SKU's.

The 2.83GHZ Yorkfield is supposed to be Q9550 for one.

The 2.5GHZ Yorkfield only has 6MB of LV2 cache. It's Q9300 and not Q9350 for a reason.

The E8200 - E8500 TDP's are all wrong, they are 65W across the board.

The E8200 is a 2.66GHZ processor, not 2.83GHZ in your article as you mention in the article.

The company will launch the E4600 Allendale processor, on October 21st, 2007 Conroe is reserved for E6xxx Series now.

The E8200 is $163USD, while the E8300 which is listed on several roadmaps is TBD.




Q9300
By UBB on 9/28/2007 8:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
The Q9300 only has 6MB L2 Cache.




Wattage
By scrapsma54 on 9/28/2007 8:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure those are lower. Remember this is intel, they just built a great reputaion in 1 years time. Also this is a Quad core system built on 45nm, so the actual wattage should be lower. In turn, I am pretty sure intel just is cheating themselves or the Humungous cache is whats killing it.




By BaronMatrix on 9/28/2007 10:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
If you look at Brisbane, it was done less than six months before it was released. AMD has shown off an SRAM wafer at 45nm at Analyst's Day. That means they have until Jan08 to have a sample for release in Aug08.




By Puddyglum1 on 9/28/2007 12:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
E8500 3.16 GHz 120W 6MB $266
With a price this low, it makes it easier to qualify purchasing a high-end card. I understand that AMD/NVIDIA have higher profit margins for their high-end cards, so I wonder if the video card market will be changing like it did six years ago.




Andy Grove's paranoi
By crystal clear on 9/30/2007 2:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
As D.Kanter summarizes on his report on IDF-

Ultimately, this is the result of Intel employees and management regaining a healthy dose of Andy Grove's famous paranoia and we hope that this will continue far into the future.

Andy Grove's "Only the Paranoid Survive".
Remember............





P965
By alley on 9/30/2007 6:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know if these will work with 965 chipset, with bios update obviously?
If not I assume we will all need to by a P35 chipset motherboard or will intel bring out something else in time, and im not referring to overpriced x38?




RE: Q6600 vs Q9300?
By jlewis223 on 10/10/2007 2:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hello all. I'm fairly new to overclocking, but it seems that the Q6600 could potentially overclock better than the new Q9300 or the Q9450. While the 45nm chips have better thermal dissapation, because of thier higher 333mhz bus speed, they have lower multipliers than the Q6600, or the Q6700, so you would have to push the bus speed of your MB much higher just to get the same OC with the new chips.

Example:

Q6600 = 266mhz x 9 multiplier
Q6700 = 266mhz x 10 multiplier

Q9300 = 333mhz x 7.5 multiplier ( can you do half step multipliers? )
Q9450 = 333mhz x 8 multiplier

So let's look at getting 3ghz out of a Q6600 vs a Q9450.

Q6600 would have to be a FSB of 333mhz x 9mul. to get 3.0ghz
Q9450 would have to be a FSB of 375mhz x 8mul. to get 3.0ghz

So while the 45nm CPU may run much cooler, alowing for a higher overclock, the poor little northbridge chip on the MB would have to be pushed much higher to get decent overclocks due to the chips lower multipliers. Please, if I am missing something here, feel free to add. As I said I am relatively new to the OC thing, and am trying to figure out if I buy a Q6600 now, or wait for the 45nm stuff.

Thanks!




Overclockability is the key
By Naviblue on 9/28/2007 8:56:46 AM , Rating: 1
As far as Enthusists are concerned, this is another win for Intel, with the die shrink, these processors should have a bit more overclocking headroom. If AMD really wanted to get back in the game, they should just unlock the multipliers on all their processors because they already have the price/performance ratio at stock but once you add in overclocking, Intel simply wipes the floor with AMD.

Some will argue that "Enthusists/Overclockers" only make up a small percentage of the sales but I beg to differ. They have a "trickle down effect" because "Mainstream" people will usually follow the Enthusists/Overclockers" and then eventually the "Average Joes" will follow suit, finally when the big execs at companies begin to analyze possibilities of buying new hardware, they're probably going to turn to the TS guys who in most cases are either going to end up being your "Mainstream" people or your "Enthusists/Overclockers" people and you don't have to be a neurologists to figure out what they're going to recommend.




Has anyone asked AMD...
By seamonkey79 on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: AMD is only sixTEEN months or so behind Intel
By casket on 9/28/07, Rating: -1
By dwo on 9/28/2007 9:50:03 AM , Rating: 5
Nope intel has taped out a test wafer full of some logic circuitry and SRAM cells.

Penryn which is a core shrink of Conroe with some advancements but Nehalem which is the newly reworked core will start off at 45nm and then move to 32nm in 2009. This is otherwise known as intels "tick tock" strategy.

here is the link to prove it. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070918-inte...


By retrospooty on 9/28/2007 9:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
dwo is right... Nahalem will be on 45nm, not 32. 32nm for Intel is scheduled for Nahalem's successor in 2009.

As far as behind, you can't count manufacturing process anyhow. Intel has alway been 1 generation ahead of AMD. Even when Athlon 64 was kicking P4's but, AMD was 1 generation behind on manufacturing process, due to a superior designed chip.


By retrospooty on 9/28/2007 10:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
/edit, Tha A64 .13 (130nm) micron was faster than the P4 .09 (90nm) due to a superior designed chip.

We need to wait and see the next rev BArcelona and how it benches against Penryn to see how far behind AMD is. Likely pretty close.


RE: AMD is only sixTEEN months or so behind Intel
By dwo on 9/28/2007 10:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I guess i worded my post a little wrong nehalem will never be a 32nm part. I believe the first 32nm part is slated to be Sandybridge.


By imperator3733 on 9/28/2007 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
No, the first 32nm part is Westmere, which is a shrink of Nehalem. It's comparable to Penryn.


By System48 on 9/28/2007 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 3
Everytime I read Sandybridge I always think of sandy britches.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki