Saturday, October 13th 2007

Intel Processor and Pricing Chart for Early 2008

X-bit labs has prepared a nice chart illustrating all the information available for future Intel chips including pricing of the Intel 45nm Yorkfield CPUs and info on Intel's goliath - Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770. The story also indicates that after the introduction of the new 45nm CPUs in January, 2008, Intel will not cut prices of its existing Intel Core 2 Quad processors below $266.

Source: X-bit labs
Add your own comment

26 Comments on Intel Processor and Pricing Chart for Early 2008

#1
zOaib
juuuicy !!!!

I AM LOOKIN AT THE Q9550 2.83GHZ FOR $530 MMMM MMMM !
Posted on Reply
#2
nflesher87
Staff
ok now AMD your turn to strike back
Posted on Reply
#3
DOM
I think im going with the Q9450 :ohwell:

any news on what multiplier they have ??
Posted on Reply
#4
panchoman
Sold my stars!
q6600 only 40 bucks more then the e6600 wtf...
Posted on Reply
#5
Jizzler
by: DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E
I think im going with the Q9450 :ohwell:

any news on what multiplier they have ??
Divide the Mhz of the CPU by the bus.

1066Mhz QP = 266Mhz and 1333Mhz QP = 333Mhz.

The Q9450 (which would be my choice as well, 12MB and cheap) is 8 x 333Mhz = 2.66Ghz. At 400Mhz that's 3.2Ghz, or in other words a QX9770 for a quarter of the price. Hopefully they're easy to overclock.
Posted on Reply
#6
dsdsdk
q9550 has 8,5 multiplier. hmm
Posted on Reply
#7
hat
Maximum Overclocker
The prices of current processors aren't dropping?
Posted on Reply
#8
Weer
It's funny you call the QX9770 "Goliath".
Because it is defeated by my "David" - Q6600 @ 3.8Ghz (4.0Ghz possible).

Ironic, isn't it?
Posted on Reply
#9
Morgoth
wel it may have a higher overclock then the q6600?
Posted on Reply
#10
malware
by: Weer
It's funny you call the QX9770 "Goliath".
Because it is defeated by my "David" - Q6600 @ 3.8Ghz (4.0Ghz possible).

Ironic, isn't it?
How do you know that Q6600 will be faster than the fastest 45nm Yorkfield? 3.2GHz base clock, new architecture, 12MB L2...you'll need more than a 3.8GHz quad Kenti. :shadedshu
Don't get me wrong, but after only one run from QX9550, 11 world records were broken into pieces...you're going nowhere with your Q6600.
Posted on Reply
#11
magibeg
Ohh, at this rate we'll eliminate ram and just run everything from cache, while ram acts as the slow page file :P
Posted on Reply
#12
Sovereign
by: nflesher87
ok now AMD your turn to strike back
Phenom : T-Minus 1+ months and counting! ;)

by: AMD
Dubbed a successor to the Athlon, the CPU will be one of the first true quad-core desktop processors, according to AMD; unlike Intel's Core 2 Quad or Xeon 5300, the Phenom in its X4 version will have four cores that can speak directly with each other at high speed rather than two dual-core halves that need to use the less efficient system bus.
Please no flames, just responding to a bud's post.
Posted on Reply
#13
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
that E8800 (or whatever it is) for 266 looks very nice. Intel has finally got it with the prices, took them long enough Id say.
Posted on Reply
#14
ex_reven
Damn. The future is looking good :D
Posted on Reply
#15
Weer
by: malware
How do you know that Q6600 will be faster than the fastest 45nm Yorkfield? 3.2GHz base clock, new architecture, 12MB L2...you'll need more than a 3.8GHz quad Kenti. :shadedshu
Don't get me wrong, but after only one run from QX9550, 11 world records were broken into pieces...you're going nowhere with your Q6600.
Are you kidding?
First, off it's NOT a new architecture.
Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
Thirdly, the world records were done at 5.5Ghz.
Fourthly, you know nothing about this.. but I'm not trying to be rude.

And yes, my Kentsfield will KILL ANY Yorkfield at stock.
Posted on Reply
#16
J-Man
by: DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E
I think im going with the Q9450 :ohwell:

any news on what multiplier they have ??
Same.
Posted on Reply
#17
tkpenalty
by: Weer
Are you kidding?
First, off it's NOT a new architecture.
Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
Thirdly, the world records were done at 5.5Ghz.
Fourthly, you know nothing about this.. but I'm not trying to be rude.

And yes, my Kentsfield will KILL ANY Yorkfield at stock.
First off... I dont know where you are coming from but you sound like some immature, overconfident person. Seriously grow up, you have no basis to make those claims, and doing it here on the front page?

"Same architecture" Oh right, you're an intel CPU engineer now? OF COURSE NOT. Intel obviously has changed the CPU's architecture, example, longer pipelineing, etc. They arent ignorant, and by logic the new QX9xxx/E9xxx series will be faster at the same clockspeed. Even if your Q6600 can do 4.0Ghz...Do we care? This isnt the overclocking thread, this is the front page news.
Posted on Reply
#18
ex_reven
by: Weer

Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
5% more performance is 150mhz. A few mhz is often the difference between winning and losing in overclock competitions as we have seen in past news.
Posted on Reply
#19
TXcharger
my e6600 looks like a 286 compared to that QX9770...
Posted on Reply
#20
magibeg
If your e6600 is a 286 then my p4 has the power of a dot matrix printer :P
Posted on Reply
#21
kwchang007
by: Weer
Are you kidding?
First, off it's NOT a new architecture.
Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
Thirdly, the world records were done at 5.5Ghz.
Fourthly, you know nothing about this.. but I'm not trying to be rude.

And yes, my Kentsfield will KILL ANY Yorkfield at stock.
First, it's a tweaked version of current Core 2s
Second, cache is huge when you're talking about large multi-threaded processes, especially in the Intel architecture.
Third, what's your point? Your q6600 is overclocked, why not compare it to the max overclock of a qx9770.

The 9770 will def have a unlocked multi (well if current extreme versions point to anything) which will make it easier to overclock. Also, the fact the at 45nm, they produce less heat so therefore can overclock higher will mean your 4.0 will be eaten by like a 4.2 or higher. The list goes on and on, but the point is the q6600 is in no ways superior to the qx9770
Posted on Reply
#22
Wile E
Power User
Ummm, what's the difference between E8190 and E8200? All the specs are identical.
Posted on Reply
#23
kwchang007
by: Wile E
Ummm, what's the difference between E8190 and E8200? All the specs are identical.
Typo probably....look they have a e6550 and a e6540....same thing.
Posted on Reply
#24
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Weer
Are you kidding?
First, off it's NOT a new architecture.
Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
Thirdly, the world records were done at 5.5Ghz.
Fourthly, you know nothing about this.. but I'm not trying to be rude.

And yes, my Kentsfield will KILL ANY Yorkfield at stock.
:roll::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:


ok this is just funny its like me saying my A64 will beat ANY P4 @ stock its just stupid lets compare apples and oranges while were at it...also the tweaking will be minuit but if other intel die shrinks say anything it will oc like a whole new beast expect 7ghz on these new C2D and 6.5ghz on the C2Quads...cache well it would be nice if intel would replace the damn FSB already so they didnt have to use these retardedly big and bulky cache sizes which limit the ENTIRE oc....finally you honestly dont know SHIT FROM GOLD SO STOP MAKING BLANKET STATEMENTS THAT YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment