Intel QX9775, QX9770, E8500 Thoughts and Comments

[FZ1]

Fudzilla was reporting today that these will be released beginning Jan 6th? I hope so!

[Evilsizer]

i dunno cause i first read from fud it was jan 20th.. then other sources said the new 45nm duallies would be out and the quads would be released later,from other sources on the net.

[DMB2000uk]

I'd heard that too, maybe its just the XE quads that are launching jan. Then regular quads feb or whatever?

Dan

[Zertz]

I'd heard that too, maybe its just the XE quads that are launching jan. Then regular quads feb or whatever?

Dan

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115034

[FZ1]

I'd heard that too, maybe its just the XE quads that are launching jan. Then regular quads feb or whatever?

Dan

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115034

Um, yeah. Those have been out for a month. I think he is talking about the remaining 45nm quads

[DMB2000uk]

Yeah, I was ^_^

Dan

[Apoptosis]

Bad news...

Intel plans to delay the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 until March 2008...

http://legitreviews.com/news/4232/

[FZ1]

Saw that. Going for the E8500 for sure. Anyone hear if this date is still the target?

[Evilsizer]

i would hope so

http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/sho ... d=!ORDERID!
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/sho ... d=!ORDERID!

for the price the E8400 looks like the better deal.. can see spending about $100 more for a .5 higher multi and a bit of cpu speed.

[FZ1]

Oh no...say it isn't so!
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displa ... ssors.html

Initially Intel planned to roll-out its code-named Wolfdale and Yorkfield microprocessors that are projected to be marketed under Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme brand-names on the 10th of January, 2008. But the plans have changed and, according to a news-story at HKEPC web-site, Intel will only be able to release dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo 8000-series (Wolfdale) processors in February, while Intel Core 2 Quad 9000-series (Yorkfield) will only see the light of the day in February or March.

[maj0r_pawnage]

guess this is what happens when they have basically no competition from amd :-/

[maj0r_pawnage]

also, someone help me understand this, say you have two cpus, both with the same multiplier, and one that has a higher freq, whats the point of buying the higher freq one when you can just get the lower freq one and oc it to make it equal, arent the ones with higher speeds just factory set overclocks of the lower versions??? why would people buy e6850 which is 9x333 when they could get e4300 which is 9x200? in the end shouldnt they be able to reach the same OC level?

[FZ1]

It depends on the processors. Each succession of CPU lines have improvements in architecture, native instructions, bus speeds, etc. If the processors are from the same "family" (i.e. Conroe E6750 & E6850) what you are saying is true. However, if you have a board that limits your FSB OC, having the higher multiplier makes OCing easier. You can't compare the E6850 Conroe to the E8400 Penryn because they are different lines/families and have differences outside of multiplier and clock speed.

[maj0r_pawnage]

so if they are in the same "family" than they are basically the exact same chip but one of them is just factory oced ?( and if they have same multi)

[DMB2000uk]

Pretty much, but there is also a process called binning, in which the freshly made CPU's that haven't been assigned to a model are 'quickly' checked to see what speed they can comfortably operate at. The faster ones are set aside (binned) for the high end models and the lower ones are set aside (binned) for slower models.

Fortunately for us, the yeilds on conroe architecture must be awesome, as even the lower ones are able to get to around the 3Ghz mark from below the 2GHz mark, so it isn't such an issue. ^_^ (But worth pointing out all the same).

So that is the one reason it is better to go with the higher models, particually the XE ones, as they are known to be the fastest chip from production. But intel only samples a sample from each batch, so it may be that other ones get classified as lower, when they are just as good as the higher end binned ones. So that is why overclocking is all down to luck mostly

Dan

[Sowser13]

Is there any difference between the E8500 and E8400 other than the .16 boost in processor speed? If not the $83 cost differential would drive me towards the E8400.

[FZ1]

Is there any difference between the E8500 and E8400 other than the .16 boost in processor speed? If not the $83 cost differential would drive me towards the E8400.

No

[Apoptosis]

yeah the E8400 and E8500 will have the same 6MB shared L2 cache and 1333MHz bus speed... .16Ghz for $83 doesn't make sense to me, but it is the fastest dual-core part... for the same price you can get an Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300 though at 2.5GHz with 6MB shared L2 cache and 1333MHz bus speed... Wonder if that quad overclocks... So the E8500 is prices the same as the Q9300...

Fastest dual-core or slowest quad-core???

That is going to make people think for a good long time.

[Methious]

I'm already scoping out the e8400 for my next build, looks like it only gives a 1 or 2 percent increase in performance over the processor it's replacing, but the low temps it's running in review make it a real attractive candidate for OC under air. I would like to see how the lower end Quads over clock and their heat generation before I build.