Intel 1600FSB CPU coming Q1 2008

[Tute]

I don't think Intel would let Anandtech release benchmarks to the world unless it was fairly accurate - remember how AMD wouldn't because of how unoptimised Barcelona is/was?

 

[simonnance]

i think i'll wait till Nelhaem.... intergrated northbridge goodness!

 

[Participant]

Q9450 looks interesting.

Not sure whether to get a cheap duo now and get the Q9450 later, or a Q6600 now...

If you can afford it, the Q6600 now. However you could also get a cheapo 2140 or something as a [more than sufficient] bridger, then get the Q6600 when the new chips come out and it falls in price. That's my plan, and by that time the 4 cores will be utilised by more applications.

 

[Vimes]

For the QX9770 am I right in assuming that with the 1666mhz FSB only the x38 chipset boards will support them or will the P35 ones offer support via a BIOS update....?

 

[Talrinys]

For the QX9770 am I right in assuming that with the 1666mhz FSB only the x38 chipset boards will support them or will the P35 ones offer support via a BIOS update....?

I don't get it, the P35 boards can deliver 1666mhz with no problems, so why should it require a new mobo?
1600mhz FSB really isn't a lot.

 

[marscay]

i've been against going to quad core but the Q9450 does look extremely tempting for $316, 45nm should be an easy 4ghz under water.

 

[tbh]

The problem with the Q9450 is the low multi and high FSB, unless you're board is sure to hit high FSBs with quads the Q6600 could well be the better choice.

Yeah that is my concern as well. That said I'm still going to get one

 

[Stelly]

It's also from XS, the difference between current ES and retail chips will be less than negligible.

Jokester

I agree... if you look at the differences in the Conroe samples and retail versions there were not that much difference

Stelly

 

[Vimes]

I don't get it, the P35 boards can deliver 1666mhz with no problems, so why should it require a new mobo?
1600mhz FSB really isn't a lot.

The quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has frequency of 3.2GHz, supports 1600MHz FSB, and uses the server-based socket 771. Pricing will be US$1,499, according to the sources.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071016PD212.html

 

[Cr0fty]

Q9450 looking nice...

 

[gurusan]

What's the difference between the e8190 and e8200? they look the same?

 

[tbh]

The quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has frequency of 3.2GHz, supports 1600MHz FSB, and uses the server-based socket 771.

Is this the same socket that Skull Trail is going to use?

 

[FrankJH]

The quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has frequency of 3.2GHz, supports 1600MHz FSB, and uses the server-based socket 771. Pricing will be US$1,499, according to the sources.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071016PD212.html

Being a server board I wonder how much that will add to the cpu price

 

[weescott]

Shameless pluck from another forum:

 

[Talrinys]

The quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX9775 has frequency of 3.2GHz, supports 1600MHz FSB, and uses the server-based socket 771. Pricing will be US$1,499, according to the sources.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071016PD212.html

Yes i know the top model uses a new mobo, that doesn't really change the fact that 1333/1600FSB or anything in itself isn't really major news for any of us here, we're all running much higher than that. Overclocking my friend's rig now, that's 1700FSB without much effort on a quadcore.

 

[uvarvu]

Yep the extreme setup will cost a bomb especially if you choose to buy two of them! Don't forget the FB-DIMM ram will up the cost also

 

[FrankJH]

Yep the extreme setup will cost a bomb especially if you choose to buy two of them! Don't forget the FB-DIMM ram will up the cost also

Ouuuuccchh I forgot about that change as well

 

[Lanz]

Arent most us us running our C2Ds at 1600FSB or above already?

All these fsb bumps in speed really mean nothing.
It just means we'll have to go and buy some better ram to overclock these new cpus... bah

 

[drunkenmaster]

well, unless the x48 chipset brings around easy 550mhz fsb on quads then the 45nm overclocking won't actually get us any further than current chips , so they are almost a complete waste. 500mhz is out of reach for a lot of quads right now, which means on a Q6600, using the 9 multi 4ghz isn't hugely easy. dropping down from 65 to 45nm should give overclockers a much higher headroom, but without higher multipliers we are fairly screwed.

as for intergrated mem controllers, theres not a single shred of evidence or logical proof that would indicate that it will massively increase the IPC of the chip, mostly it won't. mem controller stuck on the cpu could mean very few chipset upgrades(a la ath 64 chipsets), which means fewer upgrades to mem controller and possibly far more difficult to get higher fsb, added to moving more heat and power onto the cpu die.


they need to release a killer 12mb cache 266mhz fsb quad core penryn or for most of us, lower overclocks due to fsb/multi, compared to higher overclocks on current quads will mean upgrading is virtually pointless. theres little indication that intel have improved quads fsb overclocking on the x38, so x48 would have to be something ludicrously special, but considering it sounds like cherry picked x38's, a big boost is unlikely.

 

[randal]

This ties in with another thread that was floating about earlier this week. The initial releases of the 1600FSB chips (top end only of course) were going to be 50% more expensive than previous equivalents. The more mainstream chips were due shortly afterwards.

I'm hoping they'll have a similar release pricing to the 1333FSB chips when they undercut the 1066FSBs they were replacing. /fingers crossed