Monday, January 19th 2009

Intel Planning New Budget Quad-Core CPU Lineup

The the coming months, AMD is planning to launch a series of quad-core and triple-core processors to strengthen the company's hold on the sub-$200, even sub-$150 market segment. Intel is reportedly planning a rival lineup of quad-core processors to counter AMD in the segmet. While the Core 2 Quad Q8000 series from Intel makes for its current low-end quad-core CPU lineup, the new lineup will be categorized under the Q7000 series.

Characteristics of the Q7000 series include a total L2 cache size of 2 MB (1 + 1 MB), which is half of that of the Q8000 and a sixth of that of the Q9000 series. The processors will use a narrower 800 MHz FSB and will be built on the 45nm manufacturing process. They will come with rated TDPs of 65W. The first model in this series will be the Core 2 Quad Q7500, which comes with a clock speed of 2.60 GHz. The chip will be priced under US $150, straying into AMD's budget quad-core chip territory.Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

27 Comments on Intel Planning New Budget Quad-Core CPU Lineup

#1
LittleLizard
AT LEAST, CORE 2 QUAD FOR THE MASSES :rockout::rockout::rockout:.

also, low bus + high multiplier + 45nm + low TDP = You know to what is equal :)
Posted on Reply
#2
rpsgc
Oh look, it's a quad-core Celeron :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#3
Rexter
Looks more like a quad-core "pentium dual core". Not bad.
Posted on Reply
#4
rpsgc
by: Rexter
Looks more like a quad-core "pentium dual core". Not bad.
Not really because Pentium Dual-Core (E5200 etc) have 1MB per core, this has 512kB per core. Complete nonsense.
Posted on Reply
#5
Rexter
by: rpsgc
Not really because Pentium Dual-Core (E5200 etc) have 1MB per core, this has 512kB per core. Complete nonsense.
Oh! Of course, i should have seen that. Yeah that is rediculous. But maybe they DID mean 1mb per. core and the post is wrong? Or is it just quad core celeron?

The pentium dual core are pretty good. They never get warm, use little power and perfoms well and costs. nothing. Quad core version of them would be perfect for HTPC or budget servers.
Posted on Reply
#6
KieranD
so do you think these would be the new thing to get for budget?
i want to get rid of this POS X2
Posted on Reply
#7
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
Upon using and overclocking an e1200 chip, the Q7500 would perform very well. Synthetic benchmarks would probably say otherwise. O and btw, this would be more like 2 e2200 cores "sandwiched" together.

@Keiran

Oh definitely, this thing would overclock like a beast!
Posted on Reply
#8
pepsi71ocean
wtf intel, stay off, let amd run the low world. otherwise you will run amd out of business.


I hope that amd comes up with something good and soon to help drive them and keep them out of bankruptcy.
Posted on Reply
#9
OnBoard
That cache is absolutely tiny, but if these are dirt cheap and overclock like crazy then why not. Multi is high (13), but having 3 megs on a dual already I don't feel like going backwards :)

edit: IMO they should be renamed to Q5000 (or even Q3000) series. Q6600 had 8MB cache already and something "higher" to have 4th of that is silly.
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Looks like a great addition. These chips have everything on paper to make them great overclockers. I hope these can do 4.0GHz. The Q7500 with a 13 multiplier looks damn good. Essentially, these should be just quad-core version of the E2240(if one existed), with a die shrink and hopefully SSE4 also. Looks promising for a low price.

by: rpsgc
Not really because Pentium Dual-Core (E5200 etc) have 1MB per core, this has 512kB per core. Complete nonsense.
The Pentium Dual-Core(E2000) has 1MB of Shared L2(I.E. 512KB per core). The Celerons have 512KB of shared L2(I.E. 256KB per core).
Posted on Reply
#11
rpsgc
by: newtekie1
The Pentium Dual-Core(E2000) has 1MB of Shared L2(I.E. 512KB per core). The Celerons have 512KB of shared L2(I.E. 256KB per core).
The E5xxx series are Pentium Dual-Core too. The E2xxx series are EOL, they don't count.
Posted on Reply
#12
Weer
by: LittleLizard
AT LEAST, CORE 2 QUAD FOR THE MASSES :rockout::rockout::rockout:.

also, low bus + high multiplier + 45nm + low TDP = You know to what is equal :)
Your play on words is correct. This is indeed least.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: rpsgc
The E5xxx series are Pentium Dual-Core too. The E2xxx series are EOL, they don't count.
The E2000 series is still sold, and I wasn't aware Intel had EOL'd them. So they definitely do count. Either way, the Celeron E1000 series only has 512KB of Shared L2, so these new Quads have more per core than the Celerons.

Edit: The E2000 series is not EOL. In fact the E2220 is part of the January price cut announcement, they don't annouce price cuts if the product is EOL.
Posted on Reply
#14
cloaker
wow, Intel is just running AMD into the ground.

This new series looks very promising and will definately help to keep LGA775 alive longer :)
Posted on Reply
#15
Octavean
Q7000 series sounds good to me!

Good lord what is AMD to do,...???? :cry:
Posted on Reply
#16
r9
I would pay 100$ :D
Posted on Reply
#17

Those are effectively defective Q8xxx chips which in itself are defective Q9xxx chips, faulty cache disabled on both cores.

I'd rather see them drop the price of the Q8xxx and Q9xxx to sub £150.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#18
SystemViper
Q7500 with a 13 multiplier looks like it will be 150 an looks like a sweet overclocker...
Posted on Reply
#19
werty316
Now this is exactly what I was waiting for :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#20
spearman914
45nm = better oc
Low TDP = better oc
Less l2 = better oc

Add that together = U can clock the shit out of it.
Posted on Reply
#21
LittleLizard
by: spearman914
45nm = better oc
Low TDP = better oc
Less l2 = better oc

Add that together = U can clock the shit out of it.
i already pointed that :laugh:. whatever, is the first time i think i could have enough for a quad (but first is the videocard :D )
Posted on Reply
#22
hat
Maximum Overclocker
What a piece of crap. 2MB total cache for a quad core? My AMD 5200+ has 2MB total cache. 800MHz FSB was around years and years ago with the P4 on s478. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#23

Its fine for a gamer with a single graphics card, with CF/SLI the lack of cache on the quad starts to show.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#24
OnBoard
by: hat
800MHz FSB was around years and years ago with the P4 on s478. :banghead:
That's a good thing :confused: Lower FSB means higher OC and you can always up the FSB and drop the multi if you like. (like I'm running 1600MHz opposed to stock 1066MHz FSB)

That is if these don't have some sort of FSB wall, read some OC tests from E2000 series and they don't go over 300MHz bus or 3.5GHz. Hope these are different.
Posted on Reply
#25
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: hat
What a piece of crap. 2MB total cache for a quad core? My AMD 5200+ has 2MB total cache. 800MHz FSB was around years and years ago with the P4 on s478. :banghead:
Yes, and 800/2MB was the extreme high end back then, now it is the extreme low end. This is how the CPU industry works. High end of the past becomes low end of the future. If you want something better, pay for it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment