Intel Preps Sub-$150 Core 2 Quad Q7600

[DarkEgo]

As long as you don't want to over clock it to far. I don't think you will get much farther 3.0 on after market cooling (and I would say that is obtamistic).

[a_ump]

Originally Posted by ahkiet

I'm using an old Q6600. So this Q7000 which has higher clock speed will be faster? Is it?

at stock i'd put my money on our q6600's , we have 4x the cache. and q6600's are just awesome, still perfectly fine cpu's that handle gaming as well as the newer c2q's as long as your resolution is 1680x1050+ with max settings

[phanbuey]

yeah man... I used to be part of the "cache doesnt make a difference crowd" that is until I saw my e8500 at 4.0Ghz spank a e5200 at 4.5Ghz in superpi.

Granted its not the best indicator or benchmark, but more cache = faster clock/clock than the same architecture with less cache - especially in memory intensive tasks. It wouldn't surprise me that a 3.6-3.7Ghz Q6600 will beat this chip at ~4.0+ghz.

[wolf]

Oohhh its an E5400 with a couple of extra cores

This should make for one hell of an easy overclocker, big time pity about the cache tho, the 6mb quads do well, but 2/3 less than that ...... owch.

[DarkEgo]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

yeah man... I used to be part of the "cache doesnt make a difference crowd" that is until I saw my e8500 at 4.0Ghz spank a e5200 at 4.5Ghz in superpi.

Granted its not the best indicator or benchmark, but more cache = faster clock/clock than the same architecture with less cache - especially in memory intensive tasks. It wouldn't surprise me that a 3.6-3.7Ghz Q6600 will beat this chip at ~4.0+ghz.

I agree the cache will make a diference in benchmark like super pi. Put lets face it the difference will be minimal in game or 3dmark between this and a Q9300 or Q9450 if both are clocked at 4.0. There will be a difference but I am under the impression it will be mininal (such as 2 FPS or 300 3dmarks), Because at most resolutions the gpu not the cpu is the bottle neck.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

with that little cache, you would have to overclock that sucker to 4.5Ghz to get the same framerates as a 3.8 - 4.0Ghz 12MB cache quad.

Not really, games are realatively cache independent. The difference would be measurable, but not noticeable in actual gameplay. This would definitely be good for other multi-core tasks. I'd take this over something like the $170 E8400 if I was primarily folding or encoding, the 3rd and 4th core would play a bigger role than the extra cache.

Originally Posted by DaveK

Or I could just get the Q8200 NOW instead of waiting for it to be stocked. 2.33GHz, 4MB Cache - €135. Overclock it and bam, cheap quad core.

The problem with the Q8200 is the 7 multiplier, that means to get to 3.6GHz you need a board that can do over 500FSB, which is hard to find and expensive, there are probably only a handful of boards that can do that. With this, 3.6GHz happens at only 266FSB...what board do you know that can't do that?

Originally Posted by phanbuey

yeah man... I used to be part of the "cache doesnt make a difference crowd" that is until I saw my e8500 at 4.0Ghz spank a e5200 at 4.5Ghz in superpi.

Granted its not the best indicator or benchmark, but more cache = faster clock/clock than the same architecture with less cache - especially in memory intensive tasks. It wouldn't surprise me that a 3.6-3.7Ghz Q6600 will beat this chip at ~4.0+ghz.

SuperPi has always been a shit indicator of real world performance, look at when the Pentium Ds were beating the Athlon X2s in SuperPi...

I think you are right about the Q6600, or something like a Q9300 even at 3.6GHz. Of course they would have costed more also. This chip is not targetted at people that already have a Q6600. It is aimed that the people that are still clinging to their netburst processors, the P4 or PD people that just want a cheap system, and heard that they need a quad-core to run Vista...

This is going to compete with the x4 810 and X3 720. The street price on the Q7600 should be around $125-130, remember. The street price on the Q8200 is already $150, and this processor will be possitioned at a lower price point.

[lemonadesoda]

^^ As newtechie says.

****

Look at this another way: quad core is now becoming the "standard" CPU from Intel... beginning with this "celeron" quad. Prices next year once s1156 has taken off will be well under $100.

At 45nm, perfect for a cooler machine, SFF, or HTPC. I would like to stick one of these processors in a Zotac. http://pden.zotac.com/index.php?page...emart&Itemid=1 Just imagine!

Even though some processor instructions sets are "disabled", it still has all the Q6600 features. So it is a great cpu for anyone wanting to "upgrade" to a quad at a discount. Q6600's are discontinued,

NOTE, Intel wouldnt "disable" feature sets if it was a bad performer. It must be pretty quick... for intel to decide to handicap it for the low-end.

[newtekie1]

The E5000 series had those instruction sets disable also, I just hope they leave Virtualization enabled with this one...

IMO, they should call this the Penium Quad Core...

[werty316]

$150 would too much for this chip. Sub $100-110 would be more suiting.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by werty316

$150 is too much for this chip. Sub $100 sounds more reasonable.

As I already said, the processor will be priced lower than $150 when it is released.

[DaveK]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

As I already said, the processor will be priced lower than $150 when it is released.

$149 :P

[DarkEgo]

I really don't know how you can bash this chip when you have no clue how it will perform. Can you atleast wait untill u have some indication of performance before you start bashing the chip or its price?

[tastegw]

i would put a few bucks down to say that dual cores out right now by both AMD and Intel would give this new quad a blow for blow battle after overclocks.

(E8400 and up from intel, PII x2's by AMD

not a worthy chip imo if this is priced at anything over $110

[OnBoard]

Sure now they come up with cheap OC:able Quad when I already upgraded my processor...

That would have been a fun CPU to play with, although going for Dual to Quad and getting less cache, would have been iffy. So far I've gone up with Duals of E4300 2MB, E7200 3MB and E8400 6MB.

Those who wonder how much cache really affects performance read this:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...00&articID=945

[MrAlex]

WTF, the Phenom II X4 810 costs £115, and they want to compete with something with lower specifications at a MUCH higher price? Ok I think Intel need to actually open their eyes a bit to see what the competition offers too.

[Mussels]

treat this as a quad core celeron.

Good temps, good price, great clocking ability (400x13.5 anyone?)


for a budget encoding system or a mid range gaming system, this would rock!

BTW guys cache *does* help with gaming - its around a 10% difference clock for clock, between a 4MB conroe and a 6MB wolfdale - but when you get a bitch like this can should clock 500MHz higher, its irrelevant. (and cheaaaaaaper)

[Hayder_Master]

when i see the cpu multiplier i say it is a good cpu for overclocking , and when i see 2M cash i say it is a good cpu which is better than dual cores , but when i see 150$ i say forget it all

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by DarkEgo

I agree the cache will make a diference in benchmark like super pi. Put lets face it the difference will be minimal in game or 3dmark between this and a Q9300 or Q9450 if both are clocked at 4.0. There will be a difference but I am under the impression it will be mininal (such as 2 FPS or 300 3dmarks), Because at most resolutions the gpu not the cpu is the bottle neck.

I agree and disagree... games are VERY cache sensitive - even more so than superpi in most cases...

Unless your CPU isn't the bottleneck - i definitely agree with you there - but if we are talking about pure CPU performance i.e. "I wanna get a 5870X2, will my QXXX bottleneck it?" type of performance, then cache makes up to a few hundred MHz worth of difference.

But right now, I mean unless you're running dual cards an E5200 is enough for games.

This chip will definitely be fun to OC - especially if you have a disposable income and a MB that doesnt like anything past 450FSB on a quad. But they could make a M O N S T E R if they released this chip with even 6 MB of cache...

One day Intel will see the light and separate "gamers without a ton of cash" into their own market segment, and release something like this with 12MB of cache. AMD has already something like this with the 720 and 550 chips.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

The E5000 series had those instruction sets disable also, I just hope they leave Virtualization enabled with this one...

Oh, you know they won't.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by tastegw

i would put a few bucks down to say that dual cores out right now by both AMD and Intel would give this new quad a blow for blow battle after overclocks.

(E8400 and up from intel, PII x2's by AMD

not a worthy chip imo if this is priced at anything over $110

This chip would destroy both the E8400 and Phenom II x2 in anything that uses all 4 cores. Encoding, folding, certain games. And in the things that don't, I doubt the performance difference would be noticeable.

Originally Posted by MrAlex

WTF, the Phenom II X4 810 costs £115, and they want to compete with something with lower specifications at a MUCH higher price? Ok I think Intel need to actually open their eyes a bit to see what the competition offers too.

You do realize that $150 does not equal £150 right? Expect sub-£100 pricing.

Originally Posted by hayder.master

when i see the cpu multiplier i say it is a good cpu for overclocking , and when i see 2M cash i say it is a good cpu which is better than dual cores , but when i see 150$ i say forget it all

Again, this chip will not be $150 on release, even the original source said sub-$150. That means it could be priced at $149 or $50. AMD is forcing compeitive pricing, so you can bet this will be priced reasonably.

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

Oh, you know they won't.

I'm not too sure, Intel has recieved a lot of heat about VT since XP Mode surfaced and requires it.

[Mussels]

comments to newtekies posts:

For encoding and rendering, i agree. For gaming i can cite otherwise - i went from a Q6600 with 2x4MB of cache to a wolfdale Xeon with 1x6MB, and my games got faster. Why? cause even those that do support quad cores, still get most of their performance from the first two threads.

Sub $150 indeed - i'm guessing around $130 USD on places like newegg.

I too dont beleive VT will be in there. I just have that feeling it'll be missing on such a budget chip - i stand by my previous comment that this is a quad core celeron

[naoan]

you want a cheap quad? ha!

Propus Athlon II's already available
Written by Peter Scott
Tuesday, 18 August 2009 11:59



Ridiculously low prices


Recession stricken consumers are a rather cashless at the moment, so AMD though it might be a good idea to offer some cacheless quads aimed at the great unwashed.

The new Propus-based Athlon II quad-cores are starting to appear in retail, and in spite of having no L3 cache, they look like incredibly good value.

Take the Athlon II X4 620 for example. It's a 2.6GHz part with 4x512kB of L2 cache and a 95W TDP. Of course, it's a 45nm AM3 part with DDR3 support. Nothing spectacular, apart from the price tag. At £82 it is truly amazing value, as this is practically dual-core money. In case you need a bit more horsepower, you can go for the 2.8GHz Athlon II X4 630, which is currently listed at £99. A quick glance at Intel's quad-core pricing reveals that the cheapest Q8200 at 2.33GHz sells for £115.

We are a bit surprised by the 95W TDP, as we hoped for a bit less. However, if heat is your concern, you can go for the Athlon II X4 600e at 2.2GHz. It has a 45W TDP and you could probably cool it with a stamp sized strip of aluminium foil glued on with a bit of spit.

Some e-tailers are already shipping the new parts, but you'll probably have to wait a few days to buy them in your shop around the corner. You can find the listings here.

source : http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15102/1/

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Mussels

comments to newtekies posts:

For encoding and rendering, i agree. For gaming i can cite otherwise - i went from a Q6600 with 2x4MB of cache to a wolfdale Xeon with 1x6MB, and my games got faster. Why? cause even those that do support quad cores, still get most of their performance from the first two threads.

Sub $150 indeed - i'm guessing around $130 USD on places like newegg.

I too dont beleive VT will be in there. I just have that feeling it'll be missing on such a budget chip - i stand by my previous comment that this is a quad core celeron

I can't tell the difference between my Xeon and my E6600, despite the Xeon having 2x6MB and the E6600 only have 4MB. I can measure the difference in benchmarks, but I can't tell the difference when actually play the games. Even my E2180 with 1MB does fine in games.

Which is why I say this won't be a bad chip for even gaming. It won't be breaking any benchmark records, but it at a decent clock speed(3.6GHz) it would be hard to tell this processor from a higher end quad during actual gameplay.

Originally Posted by MrAlex

WTF, the Phenom II X4 810 costs £115, and they want to compete with something with lower specifications at a MUCH higher price? Ok I think Intel need to actually open their eyes a bit to see what the competition offers too.

No you need to open your eyes to the thread $150 not £150 = £90 (give or take)

[DaveK]

Originally Posted by MrAlex

WTF, the Phenom II X4 810 costs £115, and they want to compete with something with lower specifications at a MUCH higher price? Ok I think Intel need to actually open their eyes a bit to see what the competition offers too.

I hate when people say "but AMD is cheaper" Maybe so but you have to take into account the new motherboard you will need if you don't want to continue using Intel.