-
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.
New Intel Processors Announced
- Thread starter Bouncer
- Start date
Last edited:
I know I'm being a bit "tight" here, but the good thing for me for this is that all the "OMG.....I must have the latest CPU" kids will help push the prices down of the current gen C2D's and Quads. 
I'm a skinflint so I always usually buy "just" a generation behind as far as PC stuff goes and thus far, I've never regretted doing so.
"Bang per buck" and all that.....
I'm a skinflint so I always usually buy "just" a generation behind as far as PC stuff goes and thus far, I've never regretted doing so.
"Bang per buck" and all that.....
Look a new MB for your CPU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1YLR73j-Nc
Can't wait to replace my toast b3 q6600 with a new 9450 quad
Why on earth do you need to change from a q6600 to one of these new ones?
Nothing even takes full whack of the q6600.
I know I'm being a bit "tight" here, but the good thing for me for this is that all the "OMG.....I must have the latest CPU" kids will help push the prices down of the current gen C2D's and Quads.
I'm a skinflint so I always usually buy "just" a generation behind as far as PC stuff goes and thus far, I've never regretted doing so.
"Bang per buck" and all that.....
Well said I'm with you on this one
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Are they still non Native Quads ?
The lack of a 9x multi quad is really really annoying.
The 9450 has an 8x which means, at 400Mhz FSB, you're "only" going to get 3.2Ghz out of it. Given that I'm currently running my dual core at 3.6Ghz, I'd want at least that out of the quad, and hopefully more. Problem is, to reach 3.6 with the 9450 would require a 450Mhz FSB which is way beyond the specs of my PC6400 RAM and I ain't replacing that. I could relax the timings to get it to run faster but this would work against the speed gains on the CPU. To reach 4Ghz would require a 500Mhz FSB which seems impossible with the Penryns from what I've seen.
The 9450 has an 8x which means, at 400Mhz FSB, you're "only" going to get 3.2Ghz out of it. Given that I'm currently running my dual core at 3.6Ghz, I'd want at least that out of the quad, and hopefully more. Problem is, to reach 3.6 with the 9450 would require a 450Mhz FSB which is way beyond the specs of my PC6400 RAM and I ain't replacing that. I could relax the timings to get it to run faster but this would work against the speed gains on the CPU. To reach 4Ghz would require a 500Mhz FSB which seems impossible with the Penryns from what I've seen.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 617
That E8500 looks very sweet. Lower heat output, FSB wall of over 550, and they got it to 4.4 Ghz on air.
Love it when a plan comes together. I tossed and turned over getting the E2160 or an E6750. I got the former (unfortunately L2), overclocked the pants of it. and can now look forward to a proper upgrade to 4+ Ghz come the summer
, with no mobo upgrade too! Looking forward to overclocking reviews on the quads when they come out. My main app (FSX) actually benefits from 4 horses, so I guess that will be another interesting bit of decision making .
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 617
Just had a thought. What's missing from this line up is a replacement budget series for the e2xxx's. Ie 45nm, low cache, high overclockability, low price. Perhaps that will show up later in the year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
Give me that E8500/E8600 for £150 and im sold!
500*9 ***!!!!
500*9 ***!!!!
Because its a b3 quad which currently is running pretty hot, prefer to get a cooler running chip which would potentially overclock better.
Give me that E8500/E8600 for £150 and im sold!
500*9 ***!!!!
I wish there was an E8600, it would have the multi to actually max the chip out.
Hence why there isn't one - Intel want to put a stop to people overclocking cheap chips to stupid speeds and stealing sales from the more expensive models, now that they don't have to compete with AMD for the foreseeable future.
My plan was to stay dual until Penryn and then go quad but now this looks like it might not be the logical move. The Penryns seem to clock so well that, in many cases, the FSB is going to be the limiting factor, or rather what FSB your motherboard and memory can cope with. Many people will hit an FSB wall before the CPU maxes out.
Given this, compare the E8400 dual with the Q9450 quad. The former has a 9x multi whilst the latter is only 8x. As long as only a few applications take advantage of a quad core, the 12.5% speed advantage of the dual at any given FSB would make it faster than the quad in the vast majority of applications.