Print 62 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Jun 1 at 4:18 PM

Intel puts more pressure on AMD with price cuts and new parts

Two things that drive the CPU world are price and performance. Depending on the needs of the consumer one or the other of these two factors is the main driver behind what processor is purchased. For many AMD CPUs the only place they compete currently in on price and Intel is starting to whittle away at the price difference.

Recent roadmaps reveal the company has another cut coming in Q3 2008. Simultaneously, Intel will release new quad-core and dual-core processors. This includes the 3.0 GHz Core 2 Quad Q9650 with a price of $530 in 1000 unit trays. The current Core 2 Quad Q9550 will get a significant price cut from its current $530 to $316.

A few of the older Intel CPUs will be phased out including the Core 2 Quad 9450. The 9450 will be replaced with the Core 2 Quad running at 2.66GHz at $266. Other quad-core processors being phased out include the Q9300 and Q6700 leaving the Q6600 as the only 65nm Intel CPU on the market selling for $203.

Intel will also make some changes in its dual-core lineup. The company will announce its Core 2 Duo E8600 3.33 GHz processor for $266, and discontinue the Core 2 Duo E8300. The E8500 and E8400 dual-core parts will drop to $183 and $163 respectively. A new entry-level Core 2 Duo part will debut called the E7300 running 2.66GHz for $133. The existing E7200 will get a price reduction to $113.

Comments     Threshold

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

Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By TomZ on 5/22/2008 5:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why did the Q9300 exist?

I think you answered your own question:
I've seen plenty of reviews showing the Q9300 tromping the Q6600, but that is almost expected considering the extra 100 MHz and 45nm process.

For a lot of people, the lack of OC-ability isn't really a liability.

Really I'm surprised that Intel would continue sales of Q6600 and discontinue the Q9300 - seems backwards to me!

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By RamarC on 5/22/2008 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
x-bit got the q9300 up to 3.5ghz.
it seems quite the beast at that speed.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/22/2008 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Something tells me not everyone will be able to run a lower binned Q9300 at ~466 FSB. That really is an impressive overclock.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By Jedi2155 on 6/1/2008 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Something also tells me that not everyone who wants a Q9300 is going to overclock it as well.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By kkwst2 on 5/22/2008 9:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for repost, but I replied to the wrong comment. Might this just be inventory related?

Getting rid of the old 65 nm inventory as entry level quad core parts (ie 6600) doesn't overlap anything else. Then they can save the 45 nm parts for higher performance (and thus higher margin) products.

Seems to me the new lineup cleans things up a bit and makes for less clock/performance confusion.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By flurazepam on 5/22/2008 11:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Really I'm surprised that Intel would continue sales of Q6600 and discontinue the Q9300 - seems backwards to me!

The Q6600 is still compatible with older generation mobo's; the 45nm process chips are not. Intel is not going to toss out a hugely established pre-existing market base. Also, there are plently of oem's big and small as well as many do-it-yourselfers who are not going to invest in new kit if they can upgrade a dual core to quad for relatively low $$.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By jconan on 5/22/2008 11:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
the new nehalems use quickpath interconnect (similar to hypertransport) instead of fsb and also embed the memory controller in the processor like AMD does.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By TomZ on 5/23/2008 8:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
The Q6600 is still compatible with older generation mobo's; the 45nm process chips are not.

Is that true? Most of the MB's I've looked at are compatible with both, with some of the older ones just requiring a BIOS update.

By therealnickdanger on 5/23/2008 10:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
That's my understanding as well. The 45nm chips still plug in the same way, but you might need a BIOS update for the BIOS to properly indentify it. It should still function just fine...

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By eeto on 5/23/2008 10:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, my nforce chipset mobo is compatible with 45nm duo, not 45nm quads. In my case, Q6600 is the best quad i can get.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By tungtung on 5/22/2008 5:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your comment, the Q9300 sure was an oddball product. However I was under the impression that it was supposedly created to replace the Q6600, especially given that from some reviews I have read, they have very similar performance, although from what I can see today the Q9300 is priced roughly 40-50% more than the Q6600.

What I don't understand however is why they phase out the Q9450 that fast. I mean in Canada, as far as I know most retailers only have them in stock for about a month now (even though it was announced several months ago). I just find it odd that it would be phased out that quick.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/23/2008 6:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
They want to use their 65nm parts for low end to get rid of them. If they priced the Q9300 at 190$ and the Q9450 at 240$ then everyone would buy those.

So if they put the 45nm die into more expensive processors they can get more for them and still drain 65nm reserves by selling Q6600's dime a dozen.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By BSMonitor on 5/22/2008 5:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
The 9300 is the double cheeseburger Wolfies with only 3 MB cache enabled versus the full 6 MB.

But you are right, seems odd they chose a .5 multiplier for it. Must have wanted it to clock higher than the Q6600 but still below the 9450(12MB L2 2.66 GHz)...

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/22/2008 6:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
If the Q9300 is supposed to be two E7200's with a 7.5 multiplier why doesn't intel make a freakin Q7100 with an 9x multiplier and 6 MB L2? That would be 2.4 GHz (9x266) and in my opinion an excellent value quad. Too bad that is a 45nm Q6600 with 2 MB less L2...

Then the great Q6600 can finally be retired. But I think Intel is postponing the Q6600's retirement because it is absolutely famous and probably pulls in a ton of money from OEM's and builders.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By kkwst2 on 5/22/2008 8:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it likely all about inventory? If they've got a bunch of 65 nm stock, just bin them all value 6600's to get rid of them. If they're getting good yields on the 45nm, why make value parts out of them when they can bin them as the highest performance chips and make a ton more money.

Makes perfect sense to me, and makes for less confusing parts overlap.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/23/2008 6:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
After I posted I thought about that. It makes sense. Intel needs to get rid of 65nm parts and what better way than to use two die in your most popular and cheap quad core.

And I guess that helps the 45nm shortage (which isn't that bad, but it's there).

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By Pryde on 5/22/2008 5:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Q9300 is a great product, smaller cache, slower clocks cuts down on power and heat. I bet you could undervolt that thing and beat AMD 65W Qcore.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By fake01 on 5/22/2008 8:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I heard the Q9450 was being changed to Q9400 but with half the cache but will keep the 8x multiplier. Kinda like fusing both Q9300 and Q9450 together. How true this is I don't know.

I really don't mind the price drops but its unfortunate that its gonna happen after I upgrade my PC this year (which will be shortly after the new GPU's are released)

Q9550 is looking attractive now as it can hit 3.8GHz all the way up to 4GHz stable with a good motherboard. Can't say the same for the Q9650 which will be overpriced at $700+AU :(.

RE: Why did the Q9300 exist?
By ImSpartacus on 5/23/2008 3:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
I really doubt there will be a Q9400. It doesn't really make much sense. Bring back the Q94*0 after it is discontinued? Uhh, I don't think so.

Besides, the extra .5 multiplier doesn't make too much of a difference from the Q9300.

By Inkjammer on 5/22/2008 5:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
That figures. I ordered an E8400 yesterday, got it today... and guess what happens. Eh well. $20 isn't a big loss compared to some of the other price drops which could lead to serious cases of buyer's regret.

Only reason I went with an E8400 is the Q9450 has been out of stock since it's release date. I started to ponder if Intel was having production problems or the series was plagued by some sort of glitch given its scarcity since launch.

RE: D'oh!
By TomZ on 5/22/2008 5:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but Newegg has the Q9450 in stock today...

RE: D'oh!
By Inkjammer on 5/22/2008 7:33:53 PM , Rating: 5
Are you f... oh my god they do. HA! Go figure.

I'm trying to find a proper metaphor to express how annoyed I am at this very moment. Short of discovering my life story was being directed by Uwe Boll, I doubt I could find any proper level of suck to compare it to.

RE: D'oh!
By hcforde on 5/22/2008 8:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
The Q9450's?......They are sold out already.

RE: D'oh!
By feelingshorter on 5/22/2008 9:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you google it, thats what i did at first. But if you use the newegg website search, its still there.

RE: D'oh!
By ImSpartacus on 5/25/2008 12:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, when Newegg deactivates a product when they know it's going to be out of stock for a long time, you can still google the name and get into the deactivated page.

By crystal clear on 5/23/2008 8:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
The price cuts expected can be directly linked to this news item-

Intel says Nehalem chips on track for '08 2nd half

SAN FRANCISCO, May 21 (Reuters) - Intel Corp (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) is on track to ship its next generation of computer processors, code-named Nehalem, in the second half of this year, Chief Executive Paul Otellini said on Wednesday.

"Nehalem ... is still scheduled to launch in the second half of the year," Otellini told the company's annual meeting of shareholders.

He also confirmed plans to quickly increase output of computer processors made with the latest technology, which can etch circuits 45 nanometers wide, 30 percent smaller than previous chips using a 65-nanometer process.

"On 45 nanometers, Intel is leading the industry by a long stretch," Otellini said. "We are on track to cross over in (the third quarter) of this year, so more than half our processors will be made on 45 nanometers."

By rpgman1 on 5/24/2008 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I should wait to build my PC when Nehalem is released.
Nehalem uses a different socket from the current 775 socket. It uses 715 pins instead and will require a completely new motherboard that takes advantage of Nehalem. My guess is that this new one should be released around Q4 '08 or Q1 '09. It is supposed to be more energy efficient than the Core 2s.

This makes me wish current mobos support Nehalem. People will still use the 775 socket if Nehalem is expensive when it is released. Otherwise, people will migrate to Nehalem is the price is right and performance exceeds Core 2s by a wide margin.

By NullSubroutine on 5/25/2008 2:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Nehalem is going to be severly limited in supply and wont likely be avaiable except as an extremly expensive edition, maybe 1 model of server 8S type.

By PeteRoy on 5/26/2008 12:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Second half could be December 2008, he didn't say which quarter.

By crystal clear on 5/27/2008 12:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
As per Intel briefings production to start on 45nm in 4Q 08 & on 32nm 2009/10 time frame.

By crystal clear on 5/27/2008 12:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
See page 10 in the above link.

Q6600 is awesome.
By gochichi on 5/23/2008 4:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
I get that there are better chips out now, but the Q6600 is an instant classic, it's a performance leap that is actually memorable. This hasn't happened in years.

We all recognize the Q6600 and the performance it actually represents so I'm not nearly as surprised that it didn't get phased out. I guess the surprising thing is that I would have expected a 45nm part to be cheaper to manufacture and that they'd just make that instead. At $200.00, I'm thinking this is the last price cut we get to see on this beautiful processor.

Seriously, the Q6600 (Even the name is simple) harckens back to 486 DX2 kind of a thing, it's today's 486 DX2 66Mhz and its performance is going to be relavant for an unusually long time (most processors sold today still perform worse than it does).

Unfortunately, I can't overclock mine (at least not easily at all) because I bought it within a Dell Inspiron 530... but since the whole machine was $400.00 with tax and shipping, I really can't complain.

RE: Q6600 is awesome.
By Accord99 on 5/23/2008 8:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I can't overclock mine (at least not easily at all) because I bought it within a Dell Inspiron 530... but since the whole machine was $400.00 with tax and shipping, I really can't complain.

You sorta can overclock, with a little bit of electrical tape.

RE: Q6600 is awesome.
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 9:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
It reminds me that someone said they were going to buy a dell that cost them $5000 with intel. They worked as Tier 3 and said their computer was going to be great. Catch is, it's obviously overpriced POS that wouldn't even stand a chance next to my $1000 computer I'm going to build. ( )

Thing is, is that no matter if you get aa q6600 with all the goodies of a custom built machine, if it's prebuilt, somehow the performance turns into utter crap just because it's prebuilt. Then you top it off with companies like HP tacking on more software/crap than you need and you got a POS.

It's unfortunate that it has to be this way, as people will judge such a processor by performance in a pre-built machine, even though it's pre-built.

RE: Q6600 is awesome.
By ImSpartacus on 5/24/2008 6:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have an XPS 630 that I got for a touch over $1200 w/tax. I got over $800 off with a mesh of 20% coupons plus those packages where they increase the price and give you more money off and a nice 6% AAA bonus coupon.

Add in the 3 year warranty and you cannot build a PC cheaper (especially with the over-expensive 4x1 Dominator DDR2's that I got thrown in for free).

But I agree a 5K PC is totally unnecessary. But it would likely perform nicely against your build considering your's has no video card... I do like the bargain SSD .)

You also might want to replace that 3 platter barracuda for a cheaper and faster 640GB Caviar ( If you need the storage just RAID 0 two of them or get a 1TB F1 (

Just a couple suggestions from your friendly neighborhood Spartacus .)

RE: Q6600 is awesome.
By Quiescent on 5/24/2008 9:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, someone earlier suggested a qx9560 I believe , which costs about $1000-$1500... And it didn't look to REALLY have anything better than the Q6600, especially considering price in the equation.

Yeah, well see here's the catch: I just need a video card, and my current 7800GT suits just fine. I only play games, on occasion, when I have way too much times on my hand. I have a sound card already, but do plan to replace it. I just need the desktop for a little bit of Photoshop, if I ever use it, and music production using Fruity Loops Studio. Which this setup will do so very nicely. Now for a better sound card with better ASIO drivers. I have an EeePC for the rest of what I do with a computer. The SSD is because of the fact that, perhaps I have explained this before, but because it's great. I don't have to defrag, the read/write speed never decreases over time. I can use up all the space that I want and have no problems with degrading performance over time. (Had the Eee for 4 months, still performs like a stud)

I actually put the 750GB WD on there, because apparently the 500GB WD with the same specs and everything was priced EXACTLY the same. Pretty interesting huh? I just wanted a 500GB harddrive, and the 750GB is priced the same. Maybe Newegg screwed up?

You must remember that while you have a 3 year warranty, lots of the parts I went with will have great warranties, and the RAM has a lifetime warranty.

I also added a card reader, because I am tired of using my Creative Zen Vision:M to go back and forth between my Eee and my desktop with files, because I don't have a card reader for my desktop!

Also, if I wanted to go excessive with my desktop, I think my new computer, WHEN I CAN AFFORD IT HA HA, would be more than that.

RE: Q6600 is awesome.
By ImSpartacus on 5/25/2008 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you only wanted a 500GB drive, get the 640GB drive. It is famous for being really fast and it's only 99$. 20$ cheaper than the slower 750GB barracuda.

Im still waitinf for a Q4500
By Joz on 5/22/2008 5:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
yes... 4500

as in , 200x11. and 2x2MB cache

Now that would be nice for "true" enthusiasts.


Low FSB, high multi and cheap (est sub $175 price.)

But no...Intel wont do that.

RE: Im still waitinf for a Q4500
By ImSpartacus on 5/22/2008 6:24:11 PM , Rating: 4
Why waste time with a Q4500 when you could just cheapen up the Q6600. It is already almost under 200$

RE: Im still waitinf for a Q4500
By DeMagH on 5/22/2008 9:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
FSB 800 which means it will work with ease on low end older motherboards, also will overclock like crazy with a simple raise in FSB. i.e: any cheapo ram will allow you to raise your FSB to 333x2==ddr2-667

Finally, the lower L2 cache size will reduce the heat and will probably enable the processor to clock higher. I'd say 3.6Ghz to 4.0Ghz will be the expected overclocking range for this processor.

It will all come down to the price of such product i guess.

By ImSpartacus on 5/24/2008 8:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
Intel will most likely not put another 800 FSB processor out on the market. Certainly not a quad core. It would probably be a 7000. I could see a Q7100 (9x266).

You also would not get 4 GHz out of something binned that low. How many quads can do 445 FSB as it is? Many that can do that fsb use anywhere from a 7.5-8.5x multiplier not 9x. If you use an 8x multipler, then u have to hit 500 FSB. a ~$150 quad core is not hitting 500 FSB on any manageable cooling.

Besides, Intel obviously has extra 65nm stock, and these moves are making many people understand they don't want any cheap 45nm parts out there (except maybe the E8*000's). THey're using the Q6600 as a budget quad core. It's fame as a Quad and it's cheap price make it acceptable for both builders and OEM's.

Where are the Q9550's?
By Thrak33 on 5/22/2008 10:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
The current Core 2 Quad Q9550 will get a significant price cut from its current $530 to $316

Uhhh, someone show me where you can buy one of these "current"-ly.

RE: Where are the Q9550's?
By DeMagH on 5/23/2008 7:34:43 AM , Rating: 2
there you go it is as cheap as 620$

thank me later :P

RE: Where are the Q9550's?
By TomZ on 5/23/2008 8:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
He could thank you in a few months, maybe...

From the linked page:
Usually ships within 1 to 2 months.

RE: Where are the Q9550's?
By Thrak33 on 5/23/2008 5:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Right, nobody nowhere has any Q9550's in stock. So it's swell that Intel is lowering the price, but how about get some on the market?

This chip is not made of Hafnium as you may have heard, it is made of Unobtanium.

RE: Where are the Q9550's?
By PianoMan on 5/24/2008 12:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
Been looking to move my Q6600 to my main computer and upgrade the media encoder. I figured the Q9550 would have been the minimum I'd look for, but at $550.

And you're right: YOU CAN'T FIND THESE ANYWHERE!!!

Flip side is that I guess I can wait all the same in Q3 in the mid $300's, but I'm not holding my breath until I see these in stock...

In related news...
By kileil on 5/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: In related news...
By jordanclock on 5/23/2008 12:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I missed the part where anyone was surprised that this happened.

Would you rather DailyTech not report this and leave you to guess when prices drop? And to what degree?

RE: In related news...
By kileil on 5/23/2008 3:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
Would you rather DailyTech not report this and leave you to guess when prices drop? And to what degree?

Actually, yes! We already have pricegrabber, cnet, yahoo, on and on to get the best deal. I come to dailytech hoping to read about new and upcoming TECHnology.

RE: In related news...
By DeMagH on 5/23/2008 3:19:05 AM , Rating: 2
as i find your first comment carrying some logic and pretty funny as i disagree with your second comment.

This might not be classified as news, but it can be classified as "useful". Also, for ppl not checking all sites to buy a single item, this is very handy indeed and it collects more than one model to discuss their prices in a small 3 paragraphs article.

Finally the user comments about the overclocking potential on certain chips might lead someone to a better choice.

RE: In related news...
By osalcido on 5/23/2008 5:06:51 AM , Rating: 1
So this isn't new and upcoming technology?

Holy crap man take a pill.... if you don't like it start your own damn website.

Oh wait, that'd take more effort than sitting on your ass and bitching. Looks like that's out

RE: In related news...
By GaryJohnson on 5/23/2008 9:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
These are upcoming price drops (When does intel's Q3 start? July?), which have not happened yet. You won't see them in your RTPEs until they happen.

By LostInLine on 5/22/2008 5:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
This statement is interesting:
"A few of the older Intel CPUs will be phased out including the Core 2 Quad 9450. The 9450 will be replaced with the Core 2 Quad running at 2.66GHz at $266. "

The C2Q 9450 is a 2.66GHz CPU. What will the new C2Q 2.66GHz CPU be?

RE: Interesting
By tungtung on 5/22/2008 7:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yea that is wierd ... the only "new" 2.66 quad is the Q6700 ... maybe they're trying to shove that part to consumers, since that part has been priced way up there for most of its lifespan, maybe Intel had way too many of them in stock and is trying to get rid of them now (as opposed to the almost non existent Q9450)

RE: Interesting
By kkwst2 on 5/22/2008 8:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think the new 2.66 part will be the 9400, but it would be with 1/2 the cache. It looks like they're really replacing the 9450 with the 9550 in terms of pricing, and then replacing the 9300 with the 9400 at that price point. But in terms of clock I guess you could look at it as "replacing" the 9450 with the 9400.

RE: Interesting
By keitaro on 5/23/2008 1:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
Noooooooooooo, I was aiming for the 9450 for the past several months now. It was the lowest clocked quad w/ full L2 cache and I wanted to grab that to upgrade from my AMD platform. :/

I truly hope that the new one will not have its L2 cache cut in half as guessed by others. I've been waiting for a long while to grab a 45nm quad and I don't wanna pay up the wazoo for it.

I will be picking up..
By Soldier38 on 5/22/2008 5:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
a E8600 come 3rd qtr when it releases and oc the poo out of it!

RE: I will be picking up..
By ImSpartacus on 5/22/2008 6:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
10x400 FTW

Glad I got my Q9450
By Obsoleet on 5/23/2008 3:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the 9400 is 2.66ghz with 6MB L2 instead of the full 12MB L2. I paid $360 on April 2nd (it's still 360 on newegg today). Been running it at 3ghz stock vid and haven't regretted that purchase 1 second.
Saving $100 and losing 6MB of the cache on a cache-hungry platform isn't something I'd want to do.

Nice squeeze tactic by Intel though, cut out the wildly popular 9450 and force guys to purchase a $550 CPU on entry for the 12MB cache version. And yet they'll still be hard to get ahold of.
Glad I didn't wait this generation with such low RAM prices (8GB Mushkin 4-4-4-12 for $200 here)!!

Many times it pays to wait (forever) with tech, but if you're gonna pull the trigger, now is probably the time if any. Or wait for the ultra expensive Bloomfield + new chipsets + DDR3 setups coming down the pipe.. essentially anyone who's scared of a $360 Q9450 (and cheap DDR2) today is not doing themselves a favor by waiting any longer. Either upgrade or admit you're dreaming!

RE: Glad I got my Q9450
By coldpower27 on 5/24/2008 11:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
Your forgetting that the Q9550 will replace the Q9450 in it's price spot now, so you still pay ~350 or so less by that time I hope as 45nm production ramps up, for a Q9550 with the full 12MB of cache.

The Q9400 wil replace the Q9300 so both price points will be getting an extra 166 MHZ for "free".

By Quiescent on 5/23/2008 12:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen good things with the q6600 g0 stepping. Great performance, very overclockable (With a good motherboard (A gigabyte one, I've seen used), the Tuniq Tower 120, and a good setup in your case to allow great air circulation, it has been overclocked to 4.11Ghz stable, with temperatures ranging from about room temperature at idle and around 115-125F at full load (all four cores)), cheap prices. It's currently at $219 at newegg. I wonder if the price will drop when I can finally afford to get my new computer built.

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

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

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