| Saturday, June 14 2008 |
Latest report from DigiTimes brings us a word of new Core 2 Quad Q8000 series processors.
Source: DigiTimes
Intel is planning to launch a Core 2 Quad Q8000 CPU series, offering entry-level prices to counter AMD's triple-core CPUs in the mainstream market, according to sources at motherboard makers. Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in the third quarter this year, supporting FSB up to 1333MHz, L2 cache of 4MB and a core frequency of 2.33GHz. Pricing will be set around US$203 in thousand-unit quantities. In order to separate the Q8000 series from Intel's Q9000 CPU family, the Q8000 CPU series will not support Intel's VT and TXT technology.
User comments
i wonder how these will fair against the tricore's?
Considering the price of 1000 units is $203 won't be the price at retail too high to compete against tri-cores?
333x7
400 FSB = 2.8GHz quad, prolly around the $250au price point... sounds expensive/not that good
400 FSB = 2.8GHz quad, prolly around the $250au price point... sounds expensive/not that good
hmm i have seen Q6600 for around 220-250AU so this doesn't look like a good deal to me at all
yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache :wtf:
by: mullered07;837607
yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache :wtf:
lower clocks, lower multiplier, lower cache (q6600 is 8MB) higher stock FSB (1333 vs 1066)
also
No virtualisation support.
Intel's Q9000 CPU family, the Q8000 CPU series will not support Intel's VT and TXT technology.
I'm glad to see that the production of Quads is getting to the point where we have budget Quad-Core CPUs. But 200$ is really not budget, when I can get a Q6600 for about the same price. There's really no reason to upgrade from a Q6600 at this point in any way. A new architecture would be the only viable upgrade path.
But, I doubt that a 3.2-3.6Ghz Quad-Core CPU won't hold it's own for at least 2 years. Not even Crysis takes more than 50%.
But, I doubt that a 3.2-3.6Ghz Quad-Core CPU won't hold it's own for at least 2 years. Not even Crysis takes more than 50%.
I wonder if these would be 45nm or 65nm. If it was 45nm I could see it doing ok, with the lower power req's and temps.
i would guess it is 45nm
by: Weer;837666that 50%, means its maxing out two cores. crysis doesnt utilise quads.
I'm glad to see that the production of Quads is getting to the point where we have budget Quad-Core CPUs. But 200$ is really not budget, when I can get a Q6600 for about the same price. There's really no reason to upgrade from a Q6600 at this point in any way. A new architecture would be the only viable upgrade path.
But, I doubt that a 3.2-3.6Ghz Quad-Core CPU won't hold it's own for at least 2 years. Not even Crysis takes more than 50%.
Its a common misconception due to how windows reports CPU usage.
so many cpus, so little time.....
That price will fall, didnt take long for intel to come off their $600 Q6600, so within 6-8 months this will be a budget minded builders dream. With 1333 fsb it will make for a awesome clocker too, we hope. ALLEN
wonder if these will be like the e7200s :D 4ghz quads on air sounds good to me
For the same price as a Q6600 and weaker specs idk.. Might as well grab a Q66..
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
With the latest Q6600's clocking like complete ass, and these new chips being 45nm, this might be worth it over a new Q6600. They will probably reach higher clock speeds. It would be a hard decision if you were buying new, IMO.
by: mullered07;837607Are we forgetting Intel is doing a "clearence sale" on Q6x00? They want to flush Kentsfield off the market.
yea the q6600's are close to that price in the uk already so what does this offer that the q6600 doesnt lower clock rate, same cache :wtf:
by: Mussels;837681If Windows Vista doesn't report idividual CPU core usage correctly, then what are we to do to find out what the actual usage is?
that 50%, means its maxing out two cores. crysis doesnt utilise quads.
Its a common misconception due to how windows reports CPU usage.
I am more than 100% sure that Crytek put an exclamation on Quad-Core CPU's. This is evident further by their work with and funding from Intel themselves.
by: Megasty;838070on air stable doubtful...
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
by: cdawall;838631Who can get a Q6 to 4 GHz on air, winter air maybe, but not room temp. The only stable 4 Ghz I've been able to get was on water.
on air stable doubtful...
by: Megasty;838070mine certainly wont on air. neither does the 3-4 i've seen around. The earliest batches did that, but not for long - 3.6 is the most common clocking off them. The latest batches struggle for 3.2 (i made a thread about it here on TPU a while back)
If you already have a Q6000 then you're set for a while, especially with the G0s. Even the last Q6600 I bought can reach 4Ghz with no problem. That price will last for a week. The Q6000s will also eat these alive because of the cache. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
by: Weer;838187If Crysis was able to use Quad cores, you would be seeing greater than 75% cpu usage. As it stands, Crysis is only able to max the equivalent of 2 cores.
If Windows Vista doesn't report idividual CPU core usage correctly, then what are we to do to find out what the actual usage is?
I am more than 100% sure that Crytek put an exclamation on Quad-Core CPU's. This is evident further by their work with and funding from Intel themselves.
by: Wile E;839086windows reports it as 25% per core.
If Crysis was able to use Quad cores, you would be seeing greater than 75% cpu usage. As it stands, Crysis is only able to max the equivalent of 2 cores.
Crysis advertised 'best on intel quad core' but that doesnt mean the game even supports them.
25% = 1 core 50% = 1 cores, and so on.
by: Mussels;839099Yep, that's why I said Crysis would use > 75% if it was able to use a quad. That's a minimum of 3 maxed cores, plus whatever you throw on top of that.
windows reports it as 25% per core.
Crysis advertised 'best on intel quad core' but that doesnt mean the game even supports them.
25% = 1 core 50% = 1 cores, and so on.
by: Wile E;839113i was quoting you to agree, rather than re-quote Weer
Yep, that's why I said Crysis would use > 75% if it was able to use a quad. That's a minimum of 3 maxed cores, plus whatever you throw on top of that.
by: Mussels;839114Ah, I see. Sorry then. lol.
i was quoting you to agree, rather than re-quote Weer
Now for the bigger question: Is this a 65nm Kentsfield with 2+2 MB L2 ?
The Q8200 will reach higher OC and use lower voltage/power consumption but not by much over the G0 (Q6600)
But It will be a case of whichever is priced better of course. Lets say Q6600's go for $190 new. Then I wouldn't pay more than $200 for a new Q8200. The prices would be relative to each other as to which would be a better chip to get.
Its sad Intel has to create its own competition nowadays in the quad market. :(
But It will be a case of whichever is priced better of course. Lets say Q6600's go for $190 new. Then I wouldn't pay more than $200 for a new Q8200. The prices would be relative to each other as to which would be a better chip to get.
Its sad Intel has to create its own competition nowadays in the quad market. :(
the 8200 might reach higher clocks, but the performance would be held back due to the cache and low ass multiplier.
That's right. A thread cannot access more than 2 MB of L2 cache at a given time.
by: btarunr;839144that actually goes into a funny thing i did once in regards to kentsfield design.
That's right. A thread cannot access more than 2 MB of L2 cache at a given time.
Kentsfield is 2 dual core CPU's with 4MB cache each.
so cores 0 + 1 share 4MB while cores 2 + 3 share 4MB.
Back when i was using some video encoding program that only supported dual cores, i actually realised that locking the CPU to use cores 1 and 2, would make it work as if it was an 8MB dual core - each thread had 4MB of cache each (instead of fighting over 4MB total)
totally random info, but it worked and sped the encoding up.
its fantastic that they are considering budget builders, i really like that - but the Q6600 is almost the same price, so i dont really see the point?
Awww look where the "similar threads" link takes me. Fascinating history.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=4356
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=4356
lol that thread was as popular as a pentium D at a greenpeace summit.
by: Mussels;839152We'll now see AMD do that, with its Phenom X4 9950 that eats 140W "nom nom nom... eating ur megawhats!".
lol that thread was as popular as a pentium D at a greenpeace summit.
by: btarunr;839154forget thermal grease, lets just use some BBq sauce. For a heatsink, a frypan...
We'll now see AMD do that, with its Phenom X4 9950 that eats 140W "nom nom nom... eating ur megawhats!".
The way i see it, with todays 'green' mindset (and increasing electrical bills for the non greens) any CPU over 100W stock, is just ridiculous.
by: cdawall;837916Not with a 7x multi are you gonna get 4gig :eek: A quad running at 572mhz FSB would be something else, thing is most modern boards cant hit 500FSB on a 45nm quad so prob the best yer gonna see is 3.4 - 3.5gig.....possibly only 3.3gig.
wonder if these will be like the e7200s :D 4ghz quads on air sounds good to me
by: Mussels;839136with your northbridge? low multiplier could potentialy be a good thing
the 8200 might reach higher clocks, but the performance would be held back due to the cache and low ass multiplier.
by: Mussels;839152ROFL. That has been sigged :p.
lol that thread was as popular as a pentium D at a greenpeace summit.
Ocing these chips won't be this easy, the obvious inferior manufacturing process (evident by lower clocks, higher temps etc) will certainly spoil and prevent most of the Q8200s from being able to hit 4GHz...
by: Temps_Riising;840576I don't see this reaching 3.2 even on a good board. You'll be baking the thing even at that speed. A Q8200 getting 3.15 @ 450 is just about the same as a Q6600 doing 4.05 @ 450. All 3 of my Q6600s can do 4Ghz so I guess I got the good part of 3 different batches :p
Not with a 7x multi are you gonna get 4gig :eek: A quad running at 572mhz FSB would be something else, thing is most modern boards cant hit 500FSB on a 45nm quad so prob the best yer gonna see is 3.4 - 3.5gig.....possibly only 3.3gig.
That price is still to high for me, but it is nice to see the prices inching down. :)
by: mrhuggles;840591my mobo only reaches 430FSB with 65nm chips, and reports of 550 or so with 45nm. but that 550 would require 2 sticks of ram, running at 1.1Ghz - no thanks, i like my 4GB.
with your northbridge? low multiplier could potentialy be a good thing
higher multis are always a better choice, all things else equal.
by: Mussels;837637
lower clocks, lower multiplier, lower cache (q6600 is 8MB) higher stock FSB (1333 vs 1066)
also
No virtualisation support.
Next to nothing even supports VT from intel to start with.
As for the chip compared to a Q6600, it doesn't much matter the Q6600 is a few years old and soon wont be available, they are offering a new chip for a mass market of new product, in which case it will compete fairly well, but I would say better against the Phenom Quads then the Tri's.
by: niko084;840759all conroes and kentsfields do. i'm sure the E8xx0 series does as well. its only the budget ones that dont... i need it, as i run virtual systems a lot.
Next to nothing even supports VT from intel to start with.