1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Preps Sub-$150 Core 2 Quad Q7600

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Aug 17, 2009.

  1. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    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).
  2. a_ump

    a_ump

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,558 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Location:
    Smithfield, WV
    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
  3. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,199 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    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.
  4. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,541 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    842
    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.
  5. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    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.
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,648 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    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.

    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?

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2009
    phanbuey and DarkEgo say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  7. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,242 (2.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    ^^ 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?pag...age_images.tpl&option=com_virtuemart&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.
  8. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,648 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    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...
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  9. werty316 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    26 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    $150 would too much for this chip. Sub $100-110 would be more suiting.
  10. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,648 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    As I already said, the processor will be priced lower than $150 when it is released.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  11. DaveK

    DaveK

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,889 (0.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    $149 :p
  12. DarkEgo

    DarkEgo

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,393 (0.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    226
    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?
  13. tastegw

    tastegw

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    312 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    141
    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
  14. OnBoard

    OnBoard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,044 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Location:
    Finland
    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=getarticle&number=1&artpage=4200&articID=945
    timta2 says thanks.
  15. MrAlex New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    99 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14
    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.
  16. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    41,931 (11.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,358
    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)
  17. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,173 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    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
  18. phanbuey

    phanbuey

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,199 (2.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Miami
    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.
  19. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    Oh, you know they won't.
  20. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,648 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    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.

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

    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.

    I'm not too sure, Intel has recieved a lot of heat about VT since XP Mode surfaced and requires it.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  21. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    41,931 (11.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,358
    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
    phanbuey says thanks.
  22. naoan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    304 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    62
    you want a cheap quad? ha!

    source : http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15102/1/
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2009
  23. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,648 (6.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,830
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  24. InTeL-iNsIdE Guest

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

    DaveK

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,889 (0.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page