Price cut on CPU?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mike3
  • Start date Start date
M

mike3

Hi.

I read something that suggested there will be a price cut on Intel
Core 2 Quad Q9550 processors down to a nice $249.99. Is this true, or
not? I'm asking since I'm planning on getting a new computer soon.
 
mike3 said:
Hi.

I read something that suggested there will be a price cut on Intel
Core 2 Quad Q9550 processors down to a nice $249.99. Is this true, or
not? I'm asking since I'm planning on getting a new computer soon.
Click to expand...

It is interesting that I cannot find a processor price list any
more on the Intel site. I guess they're relying on some guy's
web site, to tell people what they cost. Looks like your processor
is $530.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_Desktop_CPUs_Price_Cut_Schedule/5510.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

Maybe a Q6600 is the answer.

Paul
 
mike3 said:
So is this just a myth then?
Click to expand...

I quess you have to define soon.
This is a new processor coming on to the market.
As far as I know the only Q9550 processors available at the moment are
engineering samples.
I've read that retail versions won't be available until late March.
I would speculate that they will drop in price later this year but don't
know when.
IMHO the Q9450 or even the Q9300 look to be better value.
 
I quess you have to define soon.
This is a new processor coming on to the market.
As far as I know the only Q9550 processors available at the moment are
engineering samples.
I've read that retail versions won't be available until late March.
I would speculate that they will drop in price later this year but don't
know when.
IMHO the Q9450 or even the Q9300 look to be better value.
Click to expand...

But how do those compare to the Q6600, anyway? Are they a lot
(like 2x or more) faster?
 
I quess you have to define soon.
This is a new processor coming on to the market.
As far as I know the only Q9550 processors available at the moment are
engineering samples.
I've read that retail versions won't be available until late March.
I would speculate that they will drop in price later this year but don't
know when.
IMHO the Q9450 or even the Q9300 look to be better value.
Click to expand...

Ehhh... the Q9450 still looks a little bit pricey. However, the Q9300
might do it -- does that 2MB loss of cache from the Q6600 matter?
 
mike3 said:
Ehhh... the Q9450 still looks a little bit pricey. However, the Q9300
might do it -- does that 2MB loss of cache from the Q6600 matter?
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation on my behalf.
I think that the Q6600 and Q9300 will have similar performance at the
moment.
The Q9300 will run cooler and has the new instruction set that may advantage
future programs thar are written to take advantage of them.
The lower multiplier of the Q9300 may make it a poorer choice for
overclockers.
 
mike3 said:
But how do those compare to the Q6600, anyway? Are they a lot
(like 2x or more) faster?
Click to expand...

Clock for clock, the 45nm stuff is a bit faster. It is all a matter
of what you want to pay for it. The Q6600 is available now, and with the
G0 stepping, you can easily overclock it to 3GHz. You can always upgrade at
some future time to 45nm, when prices change, or your bank balance allows.
Eventually, Nehalem will come along, and the socket will change.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_2.html

At stock, the Q9550 might be 25% faster than the Q6600, but at
double the price. If overclocking, it'll likely pull ahead
a bit more. (It depends on whether the production of the things
is problem free or not.)

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5460892

The pricing is suggestive that a Q9450 would be a better value.
The only place I see the price of the Q9550 fitting, is in terms
of getting the "top bin" for overclocking purposes. Which is why it
is important to find overclocking results, to see whether the
binning really spoils the fun or not.

I tried using http://www.altavista.com/web/adv to search the
xtremesystems.org forums, and people have already tried the Q9550. I had to wrap
this line, to fit. (I don't use any of the URL shortening sites,
because if they disappear at a future date, their mappings are lost.)
It is possible the FSB can't be pushed far enough, to get the
most out of the processor.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=s&aqa=q9550&
aqp=&aqo=&aqn=&kgs=1&kls=0&dt=tmperiod&d2=0&dfr%5Bd%5D=1&dfr%5Bm%5D=1&
dfr%5By%5D=1980&dto%5Bd%5D=1&dto%5Bm%5D=2&dto%5By%5D=2008&filetype=&rc=dmn&swd=xtremesystems.org&lh=&nbq=10

To get the best from a quad, you want applications that put
symmetric threads on all cores. For example, some games run
one core at 100% and the other three at 30%. Which is understandable,
because chopping up a game, you wouldn't expect the threads to have
equal duties. But if you had multimedia applications (Photoshop),
where each thread is doing the same thing, then you see the
advantage of the quad. A quad really pays off, when all cores run
at 100%, and multimedia has the potential to do that.

So perhaps a highly overclocked dual would be an alternative,
depending on the nature of the most frequently used task.

I think you can easily spend an evening reading overclocker threads,
to get a better feeling for these things.

Paul
 
Clock for clock, the 45nm stuff is a bit faster. It is all a matter
of what you want to pay for it. The Q6600 is available now, and with the
G0 stepping, you can easily overclock it to 3GHz. You can always upgrade at
some future time to 45nm, when prices change, or your bank balance allows.
Eventually, Nehalem will come along, and the socket will change.
Click to expand...

And well then I'd have to get a new mommyboard too.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_2.html

At stock, the Q9550 might be 25% faster than the Q6600, but at
double the price. If overclocking, it'll likely pull ahead
a bit more. (It depends on whether the production of the things
is problem free or not.)
Click to expand...

What about without overclocking? I don't like overclocking as
I've heard it can shorten the lifetime of the processor, sometimes
quite a bit.
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?p=5460892

The pricing is suggestive that a Q9450 would be a better value.
The only place I see the price of the Q9550 fitting, is in terms
of getting the "top bin" for overclocking purposes. Which is why it
is important to find overclocking results, to see whether the
binning really spoils the fun or not.
Click to expand...

But how does the 9450 stack up, anyway, at stock speed
with no overclocking, vs the 6600, also at stock speed w/
no overclocking? 'Cause if it's only a 10% or less performance
difference, I'd just take the 6600...
I tried usinghttp://www.altavista.com/web/advto search the
xtremesystems.org forums, and people have already tried the Q9550. I had to wrap
this line, to fit. (I don't use any of the URL shortening sites,
because if they disappear at a future date, their mappings are lost.)
It is possible the FSB can't be pushed far enough, to get the
most out of the processor.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&pg=aq&aqmode=s&aqa=q9550&
aqp=&aqo=&aqn=&kgs=1&kls=0&dt=tmperiod&d2=0&dfr%5Bd%5D=1&dfr%5Bm%5D=1&
dfr%5By%5D=1980&dto%5Bd%5D=1&dto%5Bm%5D=2&dto%5By%5D=2008&filetype=&rc=dmn&swd=xtremesystems.org&lh=&nbq=10

To get the best from a quad, you want applications that put
symmetric threads on all cores. For example, some games run
one core at 100% and the other three at 30%. Which is understandable,
because chopping up a game, you wouldn't expect the threads to have
equal duties. But if you had multimedia applications (Photoshop),
where each thread is doing the same thing, then you see the
advantage of the quad. A quad really pays off, when all cores run
at 100%, and multimedia has the potential to do that.
Click to expand...

Also, I want the chip for doing programming and making programs
that can take advantage of multiple cores.

Plus doing 3D graphics rendering and stuff like that, which can use
the
multiple cores as well.
 
mike3 said:
And well then I'd have to get a new mommyboard too.


What about without overclocking? I don't like overclocking as
I've heard it can shorten the lifetime of the processor, sometimes
quite a bit.


But how does the 9450 stack up, anyway, at stock speed
with no overclocking, vs the 6600, also at stock speed w/
no overclocking? 'Cause if it's only a 10% or less performance
difference, I'd just take the 6600...


Also, I want the chip for doing programming and making programs
that can take advantage of multiple cores.

Plus doing 3D graphics rendering and stuff like that, which can use
the
multiple cores as well.
Click to expand...

OK, you saw my paragraph about "clock for clock, the 45nm architecture
is a little faster". Now, compare the core clock of the processor
you are interested in, to the stock 2.4GHz of the Q6600. Q9300, Q9450,
and Q9550 are 2.5, 2.66, and 2.83GHz. In addition, the last two have
double the cache of the Q9300. The Q9550 is then, 2.83/2.4 = 1.18x
plus the IPC improvement of the new architecture. Say about 1.23x or
so, to make up a number. I think I would select either the Q9300 or
the Q9450, because I wouldn't really feel good about giving Intel
$530 for the Q9550 :-) It is too much extra money for such a small
performance step.

Whoever the engineer at Intel was, who gave them the half-multipliers,
was a genius. An evil genius. Think how many fewer chip codes there would
be, without it.

Paul
 
mike3 wrote:
Click to expand...
OK, you saw my paragraph about "clock for clock, the 45nm architecture
is a little faster". Now, compare the core clock of the processor
you are interested in, to the stock 2.4GHz of the Q6600. Q9300, Q9450,
and Q9550 are 2.5, 2.66, and 2.83GHz. In addition, the last two have
double the cache of the Q9300. The Q9550 is then, 2.83/2.4 = 1.18x
plus the IPC improvement of the new architecture. Say about 1.23x or
so, to make up a number. I think I would select either the Q9300 or
the Q9450, because I wouldn't really feel good about giving Intel
$530 for the Q9550 :-) It is too much extra money for such a small
performance step.
Click to expand...

But what about from Q6600 to Q9450? That's around an $85 price
hike.
 
mike3 said:
But what about from Q6600 to Q9450? That's around an $85 price
hike.
Click to expand...

Well, it's still stronger than the Q6600, and maybe the $85 hike
isn't as outrageous.

Paul
 
mike3 said:
What about without overclocking? I don't like overclocking as
I've heard it can shorten the lifetime of the processor, sometimes
quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I overclock, regularly, for value. Extreme overclocking with high voltage
might shorten the life, but I seriously doubt that overclocking an inexpensive
processor to the speed of a more expensive one would shorten its life. How
many decades were you planning on keeping it, anyway?
 
Well, it's still stronger than the Q6600, and maybe the $85 hike
isn't as outrageous.
Click to expand...

I suppose. But how much is the performance gain, anyway? As I've just
found out it won't be ready until 2 MONTHS from now, and I'm not sure
if
I want to wait that long.
 
I suppose. But how much is the performance gain, anyway? As I've just
found out it won't be ready until 2 MONTHS from now, and I'm not sure
if
I want to wait that long.
Click to expand...

Ehhh... I'll go for the 6600, it's still a pretty good processor (a
lot better
than what I've got now). Thanks anyway for your help.
 
mike3 said:
I suppose. But how much is the performance gain, anyway? As I've just
found out it won't be ready until 2 MONTHS from now, and I'm not sure
if
I want to wait that long.
Click to expand...

Have a look at an article like this. It compares 65nm versus 45nm processors.
An E6850 runs at 3GHz. The E8400 runs at 3GHz. The E8400 is a bit faster,
but check the performance charts, as the number varies by application.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_2.html

This summary chart, shows how much the E8400 is better. If you don't want
to read the above article, then just look at this chart.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/res1.png

With Intel, the quad version consists of two silicon dies placed inside
the same package. That is how they make a quad.

Paul
 
Have a look at an article like this. It compares 65nm versus 45nm processors.
An E6850 runs at 3GHz. The E8400 runs at 3GHz. The E8400 is a bit faster,
but check the performance charts, as the number varies by application.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_2.html

This summary chart, shows how much the E8400 is better. If you don't want
to read the above article, then just look at this chart.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-wolfdale/res1.png

With Intel, the quad version consists of two silicon dies placed inside
the same package. That is how they make a quad.
Click to expand...

The E8400 is only $230 shipped at Newegg. Looks like a good deal to
me. I'm very tempted!

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 
Back
Top