backtop


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 5/22/2008 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 0
I'm glad Intel is phasing out the Q9300. It seemed half-baked at best. who would pay top dollar for a 45nm quad core just to get a 7.5x multiplier and half the L2. That 7.5x multiplier kills overclocking (400x7.5 = 3.0 GHz? count me out...).

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.

I think everyone would've preferred a Q9350 out of the gate or better yet, a Q9450 with the price of a Q9300 (which we now have).




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

I think you answered your own question:
quote:
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.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2...
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
quote:
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
quote:
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.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











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