Intel announces 16 new 45nm CPUs at CES - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 7th Jan 2008, 19:46

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01..._cpus_at_ces/1

Intel has announced 16 new 45nm processors at CES today. These include notebook, server and mainstream desktop products.

oasked · 7th Jan 2008, 19:59

Shame the Q9300 doesn't have 12mb of cache. I hope the quads are affordable, but I would imagine that its unlikely without any competition from AMD.

Firehed · 7th Jan 2008, 20:03

Those Xeon prices combined with the imminent update to the Mac Pro are making me salivate.

Lazarus Dark · 7th Jan 2008, 20:21

Q1 for the quads? Crap, I was really hoping they would be coming out this month. I need to build my new comp!

500mph · 7th Jan 2008, 20:56

Quote:

Along with the notebook processors, Intel has announced three mainstream quad-core desktop processors, the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – all of which will be available sometime in Q1 2007. The Q9550 and Q9450 feature a 12MB shared L2 cache and are clocked at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, while the Q9300 is clocked at 2.50GHz and features just 6MB of L2 cache.

Q1 2007?

MaximumShow · 7th Jan 2008, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by 500mph

Q1 2007?

The new penryns are just THAT fast.

Redbeaver · 7th Jan 2008, 22:33

seems like Q9540 will be the next Q6600.... we'll just have to see the overclockability

Dreaming · 7th Jan 2008, 23:22

Apparently according to hexus the price will be aroud £150 for the Q9450. Bout £25 less for the Q9300.

I want, but can't justify the spend

. Next upgrade will be later this year with some new graphics. There's nothing out there that is really benchmarked by cpu performance, but it's good intel is still pushing new processors out. No doubt to try to stay 2 steps ahead of AMD? They were all due for a january release but I heard a rumour somewhere that due to the 'economic realities' they'd been pushed back a tiny bit to febuary / march (economic realities: q6600 g0 still selling like hot cakes and still the best on the market by a long way, why would they beat their own product?). That was just a rumour but it seems to have a grain of truth if the new quad core processors aren't due for a january release yet every other 45nm cpu is. Perhaps it takes a bit longer to make the extra 2 cores, eh intel?

edit: those prices are the bulk-buy price for resellers, my apologies. I don't know how much mark up is typical.

sotu1 · 8th Jan 2008, 03:36

wow is it CES time already again!? that was quick!

Tim S · 8th Jan 2008, 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by 500mph

Q1 2007?

thanks, typing fast+lack of sleep = occasional typo

Tim S · 8th Jan 2008, 04:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreaming

edit: those prices are the bulk-buy price for resellers, my apologies. I don't know how much mark up is typical.

Intel's price points rarely change - it just moves models down the range when faster ones become available.

Look at the price points in one of our previous CPU reviews and then go check those products' prices online - that'll be a rough guide as to how much they'll cost once they're available. I'm guessing the Q9450 will hit a similar price point to the Q6600 and the Q9550 will hit a similar price point to the Q6700.

ssj12 · 8th Jan 2008, 04:09

which will be better, the QX9650 or the Q9550? I'm building a new desktop soon so I need to know and wtf happened to the QX9770 being released?

HugoB · 8th Jan 2008, 09:23

Well the QX9650 is a bit faster (3GHz vs 2.83) and has an unlocked multiplier so technically it is "better" but it's also likely to be way more expensive and probably not proportionally to the benefits.

Re: QX9770 - who cares? No-one is going to buy the damn thing are they? It's just an Intel e-peen chip.

mclean007 · 8th Jan 2008, 10:21

Quote:

The difference between the E8200 and E8910 is small

should be E8190

wuyanxu · 8th Jan 2008, 14:22

ouch, the sweet spot with 12mb cache is too expensive.....

i'll wait for a refresher product, cheaper price and then upgrade.

Icy EyeG · 8th Jan 2008, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firehed

Those Xeon prices combined with the imminent update to the Mac Pro are making me salivate.

Doesn't Mac Pro uses 5000 Series LGA771 CPUs?

ssj12 · 8th Jan 2008, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archangel

Well the QX9650 is a bit faster (3GHz vs 2.83) and has an unlocked multiplier so technically it is "better" but it's also likely to be way more expensive and probably not proportionally to the benefits.

Re: QX9770 - who cares? No-one is going to buy the damn thing are they? It's just an Intel e-peen chip.

im considering the QX9770

tecate · 9th Jan 2008, 07:00

E8400 seems to be a new bang-for-the-buck for those on shoestring budget. Coupled with 8800GT would make a nice budget gaming rig.

lectrician · 13th Jan 2008, 17:55

-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT
Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts. this really sucks if you have a budget, and want full settings in games. The Bandwidth for AGP is 2.1 GB per second; unilaterally. So with this assumption the AGP would bottleneck a game with 512 MB textures like Quake 4 at 4 frames a second.

512MB+512MB+512MB+512MB=2 GB

this is simply not the case. I run AMD 4200+, 2GB DDRII 667, -----------------512 MB Radeon 1950 pro AGP 8x---------------
I get 4790 3dmarks in 3dmark 06, 60-100 FPS in Battlefield 2142 at supermax settings, 50-85 FPS in Team Fortress 2 Supermax settings, and UT3 is georgeous at 45 FPS 2 notches below all high detail. I push WAY MORE than 2.1 GB a second on this old 8x Bus. The biggest performance boost is RAM amount, and your processor power. pair this new AGP card with 2-4 GB of ram, and a 6000+ series intel or AMD chip and youve got a low budget monster killer on your hands that will run anything you throw its way; SUPERMAX.
and

lectrician · 13th Jan 2008, 17:57

sorry, somehow the thread was changed, that was for the new 3850 or somesouch 8x AGP card
sapphire is releasing with ATI's new chipset.

7th Jan 2008, 19:46	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Intel announces 16 new 45nm CPUs at CES http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01..._cpus_at_ces/1 Intel has announced 16 new 45nm processors at CES today. These include notebook, server and mainstream desktop products. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

7th Jan 2008, 19:59	#2
oasked Stuck in the Mud Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bromley, Kent Posts: 2,551	Shame the Q9300 doesn't have 12mb of cache. I hope the quads are affordable, but I would imagine that its unlikely without any competition from AMD. __________________ Intel i7 920 @ Stock \| 6GB Corsair DDR3\| Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 WD640 AALS \| POV 8800GT \| Lian-Li PC65 \| Enermax 600W SLI \| Dell 2408WFP

7th Jan 2008, 20:03	#3
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Those Xeon prices combined with the imminent update to the Mac Pro are making me salivate. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

7th Jan 2008, 20:21	#4
Lazarus Dark Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: US Memphis, TN Posts: 291	Q1 for the quads? Crap, I was really hoping they would be coming out this month. I need to build my new comp! __________________ My gun kata is greater than your kung fu.

7th Jan 2008, 22:33	#7
Redbeaver Hypermodder Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ontario, CANADA Posts: 718	seems like Q9540 will be the next Q6600.... we'll just have to see the overclockability __________________ Monita DFI NF4 Expert - X2 3800+ 2.925Ghz - 2x1Gb OCZ Gold XTC DDR500 - 2x eVGA 7900GT SLI - 2x80Gb Seagate 7200.9 [RAID-0 4k] - Enermax Liberty 500 - Vista Ultimate x86 - Silverstone Kublai [Modded] Keisha DFI BloodIron P35 - Q6600 3.6Ghz - 4x1Gb OCZ Gold XTC2 DDR2-800 - eVGA 8800GTS 640MB - 2x80Gb Seagate 7200.9 [RAID-0 4k] - OCZ GameXstream 700 - Vista Ultimate x86 - Silverstone TJ-06 [Modded] www.pecelayam.com

7th Jan 2008, 23:22	#8
Dreaming Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The University of York Posts: 501	Apparently according to hexus the price will be aroud £150 for the Q9450. Bout £25 less for the Q9300. I want, but can't justify the spend . Next upgrade will be later this year with some new graphics. There's nothing out there that is really benchmarked by cpu performance, but it's good intel is still pushing new processors out. No doubt to try to stay 2 steps ahead of AMD? They were all due for a january release but I heard a rumour somewhere that due to the 'economic realities' they'd been pushed back a tiny bit to febuary / march (economic realities: q6600 g0 still selling like hot cakes and still the best on the market by a long way, why would they beat their own product?). That was just a rumour but it seems to have a grain of truth if the new quad core processors aren't due for a january release yet every other 45nm cpu is. Perhaps it takes a bit longer to make the extra 2 cores, eh intel? edit: those prices are the bulk-buy price for resellers, my apologies. I don't know how much mark up is typical. __________________ Dreaming C2D E6300 @ 2.8 \| \| Abit IP35 Pro \| \| 4GB Corsair XMS2 800 \| \| BFG 8800GTS OC2 320MB \| \| 500GB Western Digital for OS + 1500GB Seagate for Storage \| \| Antec NeoHE 550 \| \| Lian Li PC A05B \| \| Samsung 226BW 22"

8th Jan 2008, 03:36	#9
sotu1 Mini Love Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England, South of. Posts: 1,167	wow is it CES time already again!? that was quick! __________________ Death to consolification !!! [size=1]Give me my Windforce! I'm coming back!

8th Jan 2008, 04:09	#12
ssj12 VGChartz PR Manager Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 232	which will be better, the QX9650 or the Q9550? I'm building a new desktop soon so I need to know and wtf happened to the QX9770 being released? __________________ http://thebladeclan.com

8th Jan 2008, 09:23	#13
HugoB H to the U to the G to the O to the B Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: ThrustingReviews HQ Posts: 1,194	Well the QX9650 is a bit faster (3GHz vs 2.83) and has an unlocked multiplier so technically it is "better" but it's also likely to be way more expensive and probably not proportionally to the benefits. Re: QX9770 - who cares? No-one is going to buy the damn thing are they? It's just an Intel e-peen chip. __________________ TrustedReviews.com - things I write about for a job

8th Jan 2008, 14:22	#15
wuyanxu quad fuelled, GTX200 powered Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in a room near Soton Uni. UK Posts: 3,938	ouch, the sweet spot with 12mb cache is too expensive..... i'll wait for a refresher product, cheaper price and then upgrade. __________________ Death to consolification !!!Core i7 860 @ 4Ghz Cooled by Corsair H50 // Asus P7P55D Deluxe // 8GB of Corsair Dominators @ 1528Mhz 8-8-8-24 // BFG gtx260+ OC2 MaxCore 216SP 896MB // Samsung 64GB SSD // WD Raptor 74GB + Black 1TB + Green 1TB // Corsair Hx620w // Antec p182 // Samsung 24" T240

9th Jan 2008, 07:00	#18
tecate Multimodder Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 122	E8400 seems to be a new bang-for-the-buck for those on shoestring budget. Coupled with 8800GT would make a nice budget gaming rig.

13th Jan 2008, 17:55	#19
lectrician What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3	-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts. this really sucks if you have a budget, and want full settings in games. The Bandwidth for AGP is 2.1 GB per second; unilaterally. So with this assumption the AGP would bottleneck a game with 512 MB textures like Quake 4 at 4 frames a second. 512MB+512MB+512MB+512MB=2 GB this is simply not the case. I run AMD 4200+, 2GB DDRII 667, -----------------512 MB Radeon 1950 pro AGP 8x--------------- I get 4790 3dmarks in 3dmark 06, 60-100 FPS in Battlefield 2142 at supermax settings, 50-85 FPS in Team Fortress 2 Supermax settings, and UT3 is georgeous at 45 FPS 2 notches below all high detail. I push WAY MORE than 2.1 GB a second on this old 8x Bus. The biggest performance boost is RAM amount, and your processor power. pair this new AGP card with 2-4 GB of ram, and a 6000+ series intel or AMD chip and youve got a low budget monster killer on your hands that will run anything you throw its way; SUPERMAX. and

13th Jan 2008, 17:57	#20
lectrician What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3	sorry, somehow the thread was changed, that was for the new 3850 or somesouch 8x AGP card sapphire is releasing with ATI's new chipset.