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

Intel Processor and Pricing Chart for Early 2008

Discussion in 'News' started by malware, Oct 13, 2007.

  1. malware New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,476 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    X-bit labs has prepared a nice chart illustrating all the information available for future Intel chips including pricing of the Intel 45nm Yorkfield CPUs and info on Intel's goliath - Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770. The story also indicates that after the introduction of the new 45nm CPUs in January, 2008, Intel will not cut prices of its existing Intel Core 2 Quad processors below $266.

    [​IMG]

    Source: X-bit labs
    jpierce55 and zOaib say thanks.
  2. zOaib New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    985 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    32
    Location:
    FL
    juuuicy !!!!

    I AM LOOKIN AT THE Q9550 2.83GHZ FOR $530 MMMM MMMM !
  3. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,498 (1.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    487
    Location:
    Texas
    ok now AMD your turn to strike back
  4. DOM

    DOM

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,551 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    828
    Location:
    TX, USA
    I think im going with the Q9450 :ohwell:

    any news on what multiplier they have ??
  5. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (3.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    q6600 only 40 bucks more then the e6600 wtf...
  6. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,391 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    632
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    Divide the Mhz of the CPU by the bus.

    1066Mhz QP = 266Mhz and 1333Mhz QP = 333Mhz.

    The Q9450 (which would be my choice as well, 12MB and cheap) is 8 x 333Mhz = 2.66Ghz. At 400Mhz that's 3.2Ghz, or in other words a QX9770 for a quarter of the price. Hopefully they're easy to overclock.
  7. dsdsdk New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    76 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    q9550 has 8,5 multiplier. hmm
  8. hat

    hat Maximum Overclocker

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16,866 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,060
    Location:
    Ohio
    The prices of current processors aren't dropping?
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    It's funny you call the QX9770 "Goliath".
    Because it is defeated by my "David" - Q6600 @ 3.8Ghz (4.0Ghz possible).

    Ironic, isn't it?
  10. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    wel it may have a higher overclock then the q6600?
  11. malware New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,476 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    956
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    How do you know that Q6600 will be faster than the fastest 45nm Yorkfield? 3.2GHz base clock, new architecture, 12MB L2...you'll need more than a 3.8GHz quad Kenti. :shadedshu
    Don't get me wrong, but after only one run from QX9550, 11 world records were broken into pieces...you're going nowhere with your Q6600.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2007
  12. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Ohh, at this rate we'll eliminate ram and just run everything from cache, while ram acts as the slow page file :p
  13. Sovereign

    Sovereign New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    797 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Phenom : T-Minus 1+ months and counting! ;)

    Please no flames, just responding to a bud's post.
  14. WarEagleAU

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,796 (3.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    that E8800 (or whatever it is) for 266 looks very nice. Intel has finally got it with the prices, took them long enough Id say.
  15. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Damn. The future is looking good :D
  16. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    Are you kidding?
    First, off it's NOT a new architecture.
    Secondly, the cache would get you like 1-5% more performance.
    Thirdly, the world records were done at 5.5Ghz.
    Fourthly, you know nothing about this.. but I'm not trying to be rude.

    And yes, my Kentsfield will KILL ANY Yorkfield at stock.
  17. J-Man

    J-Man New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,248 (0.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    81
    Location:
    Oakham, UK
    Same.
  18. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    First off... I dont know where you are coming from but you sound like some immature, overconfident person. Seriously grow up, you have no basis to make those claims, and doing it here on the front page?

    "Same architecture" Oh right, you're an intel CPU engineer now? OF COURSE NOT. Intel obviously has changed the CPU's architecture, example, longer pipelineing, etc. They arent ignorant, and by logic the new QX9xxx/E9xxx series will be faster at the same clockspeed. Even if your Q6600 can do 4.0Ghz...Do we care? This isnt the overclocking thread, this is the front page news.
  19. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    5% more performance is 150mhz. A few mhz is often the difference between winning and losing in overclock competitions as we have seen in past news.
  20. TXcharger

    TXcharger New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    431 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Location:
    SAN ANTONE, TX
    my e6600 looks like a 286 compared to that QX9770...
  21. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,998 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    If your e6600 is a 286 then my p4 has the power of a dot matrix printer :p
  22. kwchang007

    kwchang007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,979 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    185
    Location:
    Severn, MD, USA.
    First, it's a tweaked version of current Core 2s
    Second, cache is huge when you're talking about large multi-threaded processes, especially in the Intel architecture.
    Third, what's your point? Your q6600 is overclocked, why not compare it to the max overclock of a qx9770.

    The 9770 will def have a unlocked multi (well if current extreme versions point to anything) which will make it easier to overclock. Also, the fact the at 45nm, they produce less heat so therefore can overclock higher will mean your 4.0 will be eaten by like a 4.2 or higher. The list goes on and on, but the point is the q6600 is in no ways superior to the qx9770
  23. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Ummm, what's the difference between E8190 and E8200? All the specs are identical.
  24. kwchang007

    kwchang007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,979 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    185
    Location:
    Severn, MD, USA.
    Typo probably....look they have a e6550 and a e6540....same thing.
  25. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,648 (7.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,971
    Location:
    some AF base
    :roll::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::roll:


    ok this is just funny its like me saying my A64 will beat ANY P4 @ stock its just stupid lets compare apples and oranges while were at it...also the tweaking will be minuit but if other intel die shrinks say anything it will oc like a whole new beast expect 7ghz on these new C2D and 6.5ghz on the C2Quads...cache well it would be nice if intel would replace the damn FSB already so they didnt have to use these retardedly big and bulky cache sizes which limit the ENTIRE oc....finally you honestly dont know SHIT FROM GOLD SO STOP MAKING BLANKET STATEMENTS THAT YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT

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

Share This Page