Tuesday, January 19th 2010

Intel Announces Three LGA 775 Processors, Cuts Prices of Some Chips

Intel is continuing to keep its lineup of socket LGA 775 processors developing. The company just introduced three new models: Core 2 Quad Q9500, Pentium E6600, and Celeron E3400. The Q9500 quad-core chip runs at 2.83 GHz, with an FSB speed of 1333 MHz much like the Q9550, except that it has 6 MB of total L2 cache instead of 12 MB on the Q9550. It is priced at US $183. Next, the Pentium E6600 dual-core chip runs at 3.06 GHz with an FSB speed of 1066 MHz. It is based on the 45 nm Wolfdale-2M core, and has 2 MB of L2 cache. This chip is priced at $84. Lastly, there's the Celeron E3400, with an operating frequency of 2.60 GHz, FSB speed of 800 MHz, and L2 cache size of 1 MB. This one goes for $53.

In addition to releasing these chips, Intel reduced prices of some existing ones. The Pentium E6500 is now priced at $74, down from $84, Pentium E5400 at $64, down from $74, and Celeron E3300 to $43 from $53. All prices mentioned are for 1000-unit tray quantities per piece. The new processors are intended to keep the upgrade path within a price-range alive, and to help clear inventories of socket LGA 775 motherboards.Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Intel Announces Three LGA 775 Processors, Cuts Prices of Some Chips

#1
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
I'm really suprised after the release of 1156 that Intel is still reeleasing new s775 chips. It's good to see them not completely abandoning the platform.
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
strategic thinking on intels part.

Release higher clocked CPU's with less overall performance, so that all new systems are based on these - and thus, widening the performance gap to the i5/i7 platforms
Posted on Reply
#3
Roph
Intel needs to get out a 775 quad closer to $100. Would be closer to AMD's $100 Athlon X4.
Posted on Reply
#4
theubersmurf
I'm sort of surprised, I was expecting the next time LGA 775 came up in the news to be to announce EOL for a collection of processors. Maybe Mussels is right though, trying to make the socket less appealing, or simply make options for LGA 775 suck, so the only option is a platform upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#5
Inioch
How much difference is there really between 6M and 12M cache? Are C2Q's so cache dependent in performance?
Posted on Reply
#6
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Why would they name a new cpu e6600?
Posted on Reply
#7
newfellow
Intel needs to give me couple Q9650 to burn dirty cheap thanks.
Posted on Reply
#8
Lipton
by: Frick
Why would they name a new cpu e6600?
To my understanding this is a "Pentium E6600" whereas the previous one was "Core 2 Duo E6600."
Posted on Reply
#9
assaulter_99
Ha! I was so surprised that I thought this thread must have been from 2 years ago! Anyways, they may be the last ones.
Posted on Reply
#10
PP Mguire
Probably just rebranding stuff trying to make a quick buck on the people that dont know any better and OEMs.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wrigleyvillain
PTFO or GTFO
by: Paulieg
I'm really suprised after the release of 1156 that Intel is still reeleasing new s775 chips. It's good to see them not completely abandoning the platform.
Hell yes, especially as I'm not abandoning it myself anytime soon :)
Posted on Reply
#12
[I.R.A]_FBi
my 775 q6600 is here for at least a next 18 mths
Posted on Reply
#13
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Bravo Intel and well done on supporting multiple platforms still. Nice to see them keeping respect for their customers.
Posted on Reply
#14
skylamer
they go with 775 because many people have thhhhheese bmotherbaords



(LAIK ME)
Posted on Reply
#15
[I.R.A]_FBi
they'd ratehr u buy a 775 proc instead of switch out to amd
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Damn, I was hoping for the sub-$100 Q7000 series to make its debut...

by: PP Mguire
Probably just rebranding stuff trying to make a quick buck on the people that dont know any better and OEMs.
Ummm...the entire CPU industry is rebranded stuff...
Posted on Reply
#17
theorw
i might get that quad.....
Posted on Reply
#18
mlee49
Makes my e5200 practically worthless.

What a crappy chip the Q9500 is. Nearly no L2 cache, but wonder how it could clock.
Posted on Reply
#19
SystemViper
it's amazing all the chips that intel has, they have so many monsters.
For most everyday use you can easily get by with a E8400 and rock any programs, i hope the programming catches up with all the cores soon,..... :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: mlee49
Makes my e5200 practically worthless.

What a crappy chip the Q9500 is. Nearly no L2 cache, but wonder how it could clock.
The 6MB of cache doesn't really hurt, the ones with 4MB of cache(Q8000 series) were the really crippled chips.

The Quads with 6MB of cache, are just two E7000 chips stuck together. The E7000 series is actually still very respectable performance wise.

The Quads with 4MB of cache, are just two E5000 chips stuck together.

Though I though the Q9500 already existed, but was called the Q9505...
Posted on Reply
#21
theorw
i think this quad will be a nice upgrade from my semi-stable q6600@3,6 aint it?
Especially in the OC potential...Dont u think?
i mean q9500@4,0-4,2 6MB would perform quite better than q6600@3,5 8MB RIGHT?
Posted on Reply
#22
Konceptz
by: Inioch
How much difference is there really between 6M and 12M cache? Are C2Q's so cache dependent in performance?
media intensive apps (encoding and so forth) will suffer the most from the reduced cache, however the difference is marginal at best.
Posted on Reply
#23
PP Mguire
by: newtekie1
Damn, I was hoping for the sub-$100 Q7000 series to make its debut...



Ummm...the entire CPU industry is rebranded stuff...
I was making more of a comment towards how people bash Nvidia for their rebranding to sell stock but yet Intel can do it with praise :confused:
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: PP Mguire
I was making more of a comment towards how people bash Nvidia for their rebranding to sell stock but yet Intel can do it with praise :confused:
Ahhh...

I think the problem is that most people think the nVidia products really are identical, when in reality we have only really seen 2 true rebrands from nVidia.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment