Intel 45nm Roadmap Revealed

Teaf · 20 Sep 2007 at 06:54

True but if you are doing a very large and expensive upgrade that'll last a while, then you may as well just wait for new tech that is only 3 months away, as the next tech after Penryn is Nehalem in Q4 '08 / Q1 '09 so a full year.

Dureth · 20 Sep 2007 at 07:50

Exactly flibby! I'm waiting for this to upgrade from my X2 4200 system. Any upgrade now would be too little improvement for the massive expense. However waiting this bit longer will give me a system that will last a lot longer than a current build.

Stelly · 20 Sep 2007 at 15:16

Richdog said:
Too much money, not enough sense.

Thats about right

Stelly

MumboJumbo · 20 Sep 2007 at 15:27

No they cant do this! ill be buying a Q6600 In november and i dont think i can wait till january :'(

Do you think the price tags are going to be very high? also will this make the current quads obsolite and will no longer be made because then my resell value would drop also id of payed 160 quid for somthing when i can get something a lot faster for not much more

Peve · 20 Sep 2007 at 15:41

8igdave said:
No they cant do this! ill be buying a Q6600 In november and i dont think i can wait till january :'(

Do you think the price tags are going to be very high? also will this make the current quads obsolite and will no longer be made because then my resell value would drop also id of payed 160 quid for somthing when i can get something a lot faster for not much more

I am in the same boat was going to build a new system in November with a Q6600

. My new plan is to get one of the E2xxx chips and overclock it to tide me over till January.

MumboJumbo · 20 Sep 2007 at 15:43

But when you think about it. A Q6600 GO overclocked to 3.5/6 should be fast enough for a year or 2 right? I think games are far behind on the cpu front now days.

Teaf · 20 Sep 2007 at 22:38

Core Clock L2 FSB
x4 3.00GHz 6MBx2….1333MHz. Ext QX9650 $999
x4 2.83GHz 6MBx2….1333MHz. C2Q Q9550 $530
x4 2.66GHz 6MBx2….1333MHz. C2Q Q9450 $266
x4 2.50GHz 3MBx2….1333MHz. C2Q Q9300 $183
x2 3.16GHz 6MB 1333MHz C2D E8500 $316
x2 3.00GHz 6MB 1333MHz C2D E8400 $224
x2 2.83GHz 6MB 1333MHz C2D E8300 $183
x2 2.66GHz 6MB 1333MHz C2D E8200 $163

Found that, don't know if it's true but apparantly it's an estimated guide price. Hopefully it's near, $266 (Q9450) would probably equate to near enough what the Q6600 costs at the moment (giving some inflation in price in UK due to tax). Guessing the Q9300 would be like a quad version of a E64** in Penryn form?

Kanifee · 21 Sep 2007 at 00:25

quad core 2.50ghz c2d on 45nm for about £100 id bbuy that, will the 45nm help with oc's?

Deleted User 234324 · 21 Sep 2007 at 10:39

damian666 said:
quad core 2.50ghz c2d on 45nm for about £100 id bbuy that, will the 45nm help with oc's?

45nm allows lower voltage and cooler operating temps so in theory yeah it will help with OC's

MumboJumbo · 21 Sep 2007 at 13:02

:'( Great now im going to be buying an Q6600 knowing theese will be coming out. But then again i think id just skip these and wait till new quads come out and upgrade in a year to two years.

sargatanas · 21 Sep 2007 at 14:21

8igdave said:
:'( Great now im going to be buying an Q6600 knowing theese will be coming out. But then again i think id just skip these and wait till new quads come out and upgrade in a year to two years.

So ten buy a lesser cpu, like an E2140 to tide you over for 2 months. then put the money you saved toward a Q9450.

MumboJumbo · 21 Sep 2007 at 14:47

Well looking at speculations these may clock higher but clock for clock they are serposidly only 5% faster. Which makes sence i think. Its the same thing on a smaller die. The advantage is tis cooler so it will overclock further. But be honest. Do we need quads running faster then 3.6 for games?

So ill be happy with a Q6600 for a year or two.

stickroad · 21 Sep 2007 at 14:52

Q6600 all the way.

MumboJumbo · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:20

amen lol

sargatanas · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:27

8igdave said:
Well looking at speculations these may clock higher but clock for clock they are serposidly only 5% faster. Which makes sence i think. Its the same thing on a smaller die. The advantage is tis cooler so it will overclock further. But be honest. Do we need quads running faster then 3.6 for games?

So ill be happy with a Q6600 for a year or two.

Do we NEED quads at all?

It's not about need, its about wanting the most performance you can get for your money.

MumboJumbo · 21 Sep 2007 at 20:19

sargatanas said:
Do we NEED quads at all?

It's not about need, its about wanting the most performance you can get for your money.

I beleive that 6 months down the line (maybe even less) many games will take advantage of quad core so i beleive yes its a good thing to have.

But if they take advantage of 4 cores i doubt youll need them overclocked any more then 3ghz let alone 3.5+

sargatanas · 21 Sep 2007 at 20:29

I also believe that there is no god but does that make it true?

stickroad · 21 Sep 2007 at 20:31

sargatanas said:
Do we NEED quads at all?

It's not about need, its about wanting the most performance you can get for your money.

Some people do other people do not.

sargatanas · 21 Sep 2007 at 20:33

stickroad said:
Some people do other people do not.

no one NEEDS a quad, no one even NEEDS a dual, it's all about want. Most people don't even NEED a PC at all.

stickroad · 21 Sep 2007 at 20:35

sargatanas said:
no one NEEDS a quad, no one even NEEDS a dual, it's all about want. Most people don't even NEED a PC at all.

Huh?

What do you mean no one needs Quad, let alone a dual core.

So you think, people that design games etc, do it on a Single Core system?