ten dollars is called a cut?

:/

I want a cut on the Q9650, it needs to be down in the $300 range.

I can't put my head around the fact that you can have a Core i7 for 300$ and yet people still buy Yorkfield.

by: Weer

---

I can't put my head around the fact that you can have a Core i7 for 300$ and yet people still buy Yorkfield.

---

Yes, the processor is only $300, but the cheapest motherboard is $200, and 3GB of DDR3 is $75.

While a Yorkfield is $190, a motherboard to support it is $50, and 4GB of DDR2 is $35.

Yeah, I can't think of any reason someone would want a Yorkfield over a Core i7...:shadedshu

Quads are still terribly expensive, something needs to go cheaper than Q6600. They can't be double the price of Duals as there isn't double the performance (even close). Those QXXXXs versions look nice, but they'd need to be 2/3 of the price.

Woot, e7500!

I really need to get rid of this quad and go i7 with water cooling. :)

Those quad prices are much higher than their usual price (well, so long as your shopping the right retailers). And what do they mean by new energy efficient C2Qs? Those look the same. I'm still waiting for a 12mb quad to go under $300, which I would have hoped would have happened by now. *silently shakes fist at PII for not forcing a price cut and at intel for being douchie*

by: farlex85

---

And what do they mean by new energy efficient C2Qs? Those look the same.

---

They are the same, just 65W, old ones are 95W TDP. So you get a quad with same heat as 65nm C2D's, not bad :)

Have heard about this a while ago and wasnt for certain that it would happen or not. Oh well, I just bought my e5200 a couple weeks ago. Been loving it, the $10 wouldve been cool but its ok.

by: mlee49

---

Woot, e7500!

I really need to get rid of this quad and go i7 with water cooling. :)

---

You can always donate it to one of your favorite TPU brothers ..**hint hint**.. :D

by: newtekie1

---

Yes, the processor is only $300, but the cheapest motherboard is $200, and 3GB of DDR3 is $75.

While a Yorkfield is $190, a motherboard to support it is $50, and 4GB of DDR2 is $35.

Yeah, I can't think of any reason someone would want a Yorkfield over a Core i7...:shadedshu

---

Don't be ridiculous. You won't get to 2.66Ghz with a 50$ motherboard and Yorkfield's disturbingly low multipliers. You need the 300$ model at least and a P45 board to get it to a clock that can almost match that of the i7 920. And then it's still about 30-40% less powerful and much less future-proof.

Now, if you said that the reason they still sell Yorkfields is because people want to upgrade after making the terrible mistake of buying a dual-core CPU, then I could understand. But that's still not enough.

@Weer & newtekie1

Sorry to say but your thinking is flawed.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138122R

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208353

And yes, I would buy this setup if I was coming from a different lower performing socket motherboard.

by: Weer

---

Don't be ridiculous. You won't get to 2.66Ghz with a 50$ motherboard and Yorkfield's disturbingly low multipliers. You need the 300$ model at least and a P45 board to get it to a clock that can almost match that of the i7 920. And then it's still about 30-40% less powerful and much less future-proof.

Now, if you said that the reason they still sell Yorkfields is because people want to upgrade after making the terrible mistake of buying a dual-core CPU, then I could understand. But that's still not enough.

---

Its only us enthusiasts that care about multipliers and the quality of the motherboard vs. the processor. Most people buying these things don't need the performance, and don't even care that the i7 gives better performance than the C2Q would. All they care about is that it is a quad core, and the C2Q setup will seem more appealing to them because it has more RAM.

there is no sign about 65NM , seems intel really leave it

by: newtekie1

---

Its only us enthusiasts that care about multipliers and the quality of the motherboard vs. the processor. Most people buying these things don't need the performance, and don't even care that the i7 gives better performance than the C2Q would. All they care about is that it is a quad core, and the C2Q setup will seem more appealing to them because it has more RAM.

---

Still. To damn the i7's just because the hardware required to run them is more expensive is foolish. Which is to say, Intel would not have launched the i7's at the 300$ price-point, knowing that the only thing stopping people from buying only them and damning the Yorkfields, is the price of RAM and motherboards. But I do concede. I have not upgraded to the i7's for just that reason.. but I already have a Quad-Core CPU, one that can give an averagely overclocked 920 a run for for its money, so I can't be on the same list.

by: JrRacinFan

---

@Weer & newtekie1

Sorry to say but your thinking is flawed.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138122R

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208353

And yes, I would buy this setup if I was coming from a different lower performing socket motherboard.

---

My point is that it's worth it to buy an X58 motherboard, both for SLi and i7. As for the RAM, well DDR3 prices has fallen significantly since two years ago when it was launched and 2GB cost 500$. I wish there were DDR2 X58 boards, but that's just an expense that one has and should deal with, is all I'm saying. Obviously the common consumer would still buy a dual-core CPU.. it's only gamers that buy Quads (mostly - just to seem credible to the flamers), so why not spend more on future-proofing. This isn't like years back when the top-end systems cost 10x as much, this is only somewhat more expensive and the price of top-end hardware has decreased substantially dollar-to-dollar considering that the best motherboard in the world only costs 200$ and the best CPU 300$. Today, it's simply worth the money to spend a little more.

by: Salsoolo

---

ten dollars is called a cut?

:/

---

No, they call $10 a slash in prices :banghead: (or at least, some newsposters do, even if Intel doesnt. Malwares favourite hyperbole are slash and unleash. Whatever happens, dont do a forum search on those words!:laugh:)

by: Weer

---

Still. To damn the i7's just because the hardware required to run them is more expensive is foolish. Which is to say, Intel would not have launched the i7's at the 300$ price-point, knowing that the only thing stopping people from buying only them and damning the Yorkfields, is the price of RAM and motherboards. But I do concede. I have not upgraded to the i7's for just that reason.. but I already have a Quad-Core CPU, one that can give an averagely overclocked 920 a run for for its money, so I can't be on the same list.

---

I didn't damn it, I just gave a reason why people would go with a Yorkfield over a Core i7. For what you are getting, a Core i7 build is not overly expensive, and it isn't nearly as expensive as people make it out to be. However, people with smaller budgets still look at the less expensive options, $500 for a processor and motherboard is pushing it for a lot of people. The cheaper Yorkfield, and even AMD Phenoms, fit them much better. Once Core i5 comes out, the Yorkfield sales should start to dry up.

Main reason I went with my current build a month ago was that I could get good deals on the parts, its still a screaming fast build by today's standards and lastly the new generation of processors hasn't settled. The i7's are considered server solutions (every review I saw on it said those words), and the 'mainstream' i5's will be a different pin count. I could see them developing more processors on the i5 pin count than on the i7 pin count considering the markets the two are aimed at. Look at how many consumer processors there are (C2D and C2Q) vs. how many Xeons there are. To say the i7 is more future proof is only half correct. Sure 775 is now defunct, but they are still producing chips for it for the next bit, and who knows how far they pursue 1366 with chip revisions and how feasible it would be to go i7 over i5. In my mind that uncertainty was enough to say 'maybe next build'.

by: newtekie1

---

I didn't damn it, I just gave a reason why people would go with a Yorkfield over a Core i7. For what you are getting, a Core i7 build is not overly expensive, and it isn't nearly as expensive as people make it out to be. However, people with smaller budgets still look at the less expensive options, $500 for a processor and motherboard is pushing it for a lot of people. The cheaper Yorkfield, and even AMD Phenoms, fit them much better. Once Core i5 comes out, the Yorkfield sales should start to dry up.

---

Not to prolong this discussion, as I agree, but my problem is that for the performance you get with the said 500$ worth of hardware these days, you would have had to spend over 1000$ even a couple years back, and that is with the zero-competition of today. People should compare that to the mid-end computers they bought last time for possibly an even higher price than this piece of high-end hardware. And also understand that if they bought high-end hardware, they would not need to buy a new computer right now, because they would be more future-proof, which is a good enough reason these days to spend more money.

There's only one way to settle this, GEEK FIGHT!!!:rockout:

by: Johnytxtc

---

There's only one way to settle this, GEEK FIGHT!!!:rockout:

---

If that's like a cat-fight only with more abacuses - I'M IN!

Ooooh, covered in thermal grease. :pimp:

by: lemonadesoda

---

Ooooh, covered in thermal grease. :pimp:

---

Oh, you can vapor-ware me out any day. :p