• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel i9 chip

Well at least they've had the sense to not make i9 dependant on ANOTHER motherboard chipset! I was thinking of going P55/1156 at the end of this year but it looks to me like X58 might be more future proof with regards to processor upgrades.
 
rixarena said:
Surel you mean 1337
Click to expand...

Naturally :p

Still, i read somewhere that the price (batch of 1000) was $999. That means that the shop would have to sell it for considerable more than that to make a decent profit. The general formula is that you sell it for three times what it took to get, although i'm not sure this means that we'd end up paying $3000 for it. How much is that in £ Sterling anyway?
 
Meh, probably. I was just repeating what i was taught, but that was low priced items, like £3 to make and you'd sell it for £9.99.

Electronics are very easy to manufacture though, since physical effort isn't really required for each individual item. But the real extortion is software, Microsoft spend time making an OS and then it costs literally pennies to copy the source onto a disk and put it in all of the packaging and whatnot. They then sell this for hundreds of pounds, which must be 1000+% profit margin. They have enough money already, billions just sitting in the bank doing nothing. They could easily pay their employees and have tons to spare too if they sold it for like £9.99, and they would make a hell of a lot more sales.
 
Superewza said:
Electronics are very easy to manufacture though, since physical effort isn't really required for each individual item. But the real extortion is software, Microsoft spend time making an OS and then it costs literally pennies to copy the source onto a disk and put it in all of the packaging and whatnot. They then sell this for hundreds of pounds, which must be 1000+% profit margin. They have enough money already, billions just sitting in the bank doing nothing. They could easily pay their employees and have tons to spare too if they sold it for like £9.99, and they would make a hell of a lot more sales.
Click to expand...

Not sure which school of economics that is from? But I'd like to live somewhere theyh apply that business model :) Just a quick look below, I'm sure somone could elaborate on figures..

Your spot on that it costs relatively nothing to produce each 'copy' from the master source. You shot your own argument with 'microsoft spend time' - your right - they do. The development time in man hours for a new OS must be enormous - add to that marketing / PR and after sales support and then spread that over say 10 regions/centres throughout the world and you get an idea of how much it really costs.

I'd bet if you were to factor all the costs into each copy of win7 then the profit per copy might be as low as $5 or less. As for lowering the price to sell more thats not going to happen - even if they made $50 per copy, why lower the price? It's not as if they need to - there's not a valid competetive prouct in the market place (yet - calm down linux users please).
 
Intel may rebadge existing Wolfdale, Yorkfield, and Penryn Mobile chips into Core i3
As bizarre as it seems, it looks like existing Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors are bound for a new name tag, under Core i3. The processors will form Intel's value offerings, since they compare to the lower-end derivatives of the Nehalem architecture. At this point in time, we don't know if (and don't expect) higher-end Wolfdale and Yorkfield models to make it to this series, but rather the lower-end Core 2 Duo E7000, E8000, Core 2 Quad Q8000, Q9x00, etc. to do so, as they make the most market sense with Nehalem and Westmere derivatives higher up the order. The processors will continue to be driven by existing chipsets by Intel, which include members of Intel 3-series and 4-series.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this means they're going to keep supporting LGA775, albeit under a new name? If so, yay! Cheap quad upgrades!
 
I wouldn't waste my money on the new i9 core chipset, I think it won't overclock 4GHz so easy because the temperature will be end up like a oven furnace probably over 100C if overclock at 4GHz because of 6 cores / 12 threads on it making it even more hotter than i7 core chipset.

I probably wait until i9 do stepping chipset in late 2010.
 
n1kunj said:
I'm assuming this means they're going to keep supporting LGA775, albeit under a new name? If so, yay! Cheap quad upgrades!
Click to expand...

Yup the LGA775 platform has at least a couple of years left in it. I think it will just be view as the entry level platform (i3s) while LGA1156 i5s and i7s will be mainstream and LGA1366 i7s and i9s will be entusiast/high end workstation/server class.
 
@bulldog147, Like other people have already said on this thread, these new processors will be built around a 32nm fabrication process instead of 45nm that the current i7 processors use, so they will require less voltages which of course means less heat...

The TDP for these 6 core i9's are supposed to be 130w like the i7 920 that is available now..

They most likely won't be as good for overclocking as the current i7's, because of the extra 2 cores, as we know that dual cores are easier to o/c than quad cores are.. but I would imagine that they should still overclock quite well because of the smaller fabrication process..

I can't see me upgrading to these chips tbh, as I have only just got my i7 system, and I am sure it will be a solid system for another 2 years or so,.
 
JonJ678 said:
I'm not saying they run twice as hot, I'm saying they use twice as much power and therefore release twice as much heat. That's not the same as the temperature doubling.
Click to expand...

No that is not quite how it works. A Q6600 does not use twice the power of an E6600 for example, and a Q9650 will not use twice the power of an E8400.
 
I dunno. But I know I'm right :p

For example here's a small review showing the same thing:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/651-2/intel-core-2-quad-q6600.html

We noted that one Q6600 needs 67% more energy than an E6600 with twice as many sessions of Prime 95
Click to expand...

img0018977.gif
 
Mmm, interesting. Also amazing how much performance per watt you get with the quad compared to the EE 955!

Back to i9... not sure how these will OC. Conventional wisdom is that more cores makes overclocking harder, both due to the increased heat and the probability of getting a core that doesn't OC as well. Then again, it doesn't seem to be hurting anybody with i7, so I'm not sure if another two cores will make much difference, especially with a process shrink thrown in.
 
Windows was singlethreaded last thing I knew, so it'll be slower than a higher clocked x58 i7.

Good graph by gurusan, I knew q6600 using twice as much power as the e6600 was an approximation but didn't expect it to be that bad. Near constant power lost from the board mosfets perhaps?

I still think the dual core uses half as much power as the quad core, definitely attribute the difference shown in the graph to the motherboard circuitry. The q6600 is just too similar to two e6600s stuck together to account for that big a difference
 
JonJ678 said:
Windows was singlethreaded last thing I knew
Click to expand...

Erm, where do you live, 1991? :p

Windows 7 is more optimised for multiple CPU cores than any previous version but Windows has been mutlithreaded for ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom