i'm not normally one to say things like Fudzilla and fail but, the Q6600 when it got a lower power version was all of 10W lighter in power, after 4 months of production, a 65W chip is unlikely, unless they do the incredibly expected thing and simply change the way they measure the output.
People talk about the Q9XXX series being far lower power than the old tech Q6600, but its really not, ok that review is bogus, but puts the power usage between a Q6600 and a Q9XXX at very close.
The fact is whatever you rate the chip as in wattage means nothing, it overclocks how it overclocks, its as fast as it is and costs not hugely different costs to run. a 3Ghz quad core will cost a similar amount to run no matter how you cut it, AMD already have, i believe 45W quad cores(or were they 65w) but at 2Ghz low power editions.
I also don't think the new P2's will use 130W, again these are just arbitrary numbers, and numbers both companies don't measure in the same way at all. In the past Intel always gave their average usage numbers, and AMD always measured max power used underload which were vastly different. They've officially changed those numbers now, both companies but what they really measure is anyones guess. If, and its a big if, they could knock a 95W quad down to 65W, I'd expect maybe an upgraded speedstep to be responsible in bringing the average numbers down. Maybe they've added a couple lower multi's so it can go to a lower clock speed when clocked down, or a batch that can run at more stable lower voltages so it can drop an extra 0.1/0.2v under speedstep again bringing the average numbers down.
The Q9550 is 200MHz slower so that accounts for some % loss, and its competing with the older tech from Intel, not looking good I feel.
