• 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

The Q9550 and Xeon X3360 appeal the most to me. Still not sure if I'll bother selling my QX6700 for one, only if the performance benefits are worth it I spose, but also means I'll need a new motherboard as well so that will probably be an Nvidia 780i board I'd go for but I don't even know if I'll even bother upgrading these components, what I am really waiting for is a new GPU that can run Crysis better than an 8800GTX can.
 
Slap said:
Looks like this could be a great bang for buck chip Hex (as long as we don't get stung to much for the initial pleasure) if this review is anything to go by:

http://en.expreview.com/?p=68&page=4

Amazing temps under load and a 4 gig OC easy...

Yes please
Click to expand...

Interesting review. However, apart from the stonking 10-12C temp reduction, there is actually little benefit over the E6850. Depending on the price differential, it may not be such a clear cut choice.
 
Sounds like for someone that already has a 65mn generation processor its not worth it, but for people who don't it worth waiting. That's assuming they don't cost an arm and a leg :P
 
By the time quad core is most commonly supported in games we will be seeing speeds of 4ghz+ overclocking on air, by which time people that already have quad core will be upgrading again :p.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
By the time quad core is most commonly supported in games we will be seeing speeds of 4ghz+ overclocking on air, by which time people that already have quad core will be upgrading again :p.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point, I've said this before on here, I don't get allot of you guys that say getting the quad core is sensible because in the future it may be utilized properly, so you use the excuse of future proofing but thats silly as we know pretty much everyone on here will have changed their CPU's at least twice over (proberbly more tbh) before that happens, so I say it makes sense to get the best chip that's going to enhance your performance right now, not 2 years down the road.

I blame easyrider tbh, he forces people to get quad cores, I've seen him do it :p.



*yes I know some of you may need quad core for Graphics/Video work, in those circumstances quad core is a sensible choice.
 
Last edited:
I thought the quads got put back by a few months?

Buying bits of my new pc atm (ram 45nm mobo) and looking to get a quaddie. (Before you lot start ill be using all the cores dont worry!) Just depends on price tbh, I really cant afford much more than retail q6600. I take it these new ones should be a "tad" bit more expensive?
 
Interesting review. However, apart from the stonking 10-12C temp reduction, there is actually little benefit over the E6850. Depending on the price differential, it may not be such a clear cut choice.
Click to expand...

The E8400 replaces the E6750 price point & he E8500 replaces the the E6850 price point.
 
Kirth Gersen said:
apart from the stonking 10-12C temp reduction, there is actually little benefit over the E6850
Click to expand...
It's looking like more of an evolutionary step forward over a revolutionary one, still it ticks all the right boxes so the price will be the deciding factor.

Personally I like the look of it and I will be happy to upgrade my E6300 dual core (costing me £111 Dec 2006) to an E8400 dual core. I do think that quad core aware software will make advances during 2008 so I haven't written one of those out yet, however they won't be released for a little while yet it seems . . . .
 
Big.Wayne said:
It's looking like more of an evolutionary step forward over a revolutionary one, still it ticks all the right boxes so the price will be the deciding factor.

Personally I like the look of it and I will be happy to upgrade my E6300 dual core (costing me £111 Dec 2006) to an E8400 dual core. I do think that quad core aware software will make advances during 2008 so I haven't written one of those out yet, however they won't be released for a little while yet it seems . . . .
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the best bang per buck is looking like an E8400 or E8500. Especially as it comes with 3Mb L2 cache per processor.

Of interest, I note the Q9300 (which is at the same price point as the E8500) has only got an average of 1.5Mb L2 cache per processor. Running at only 2.5 Ghz, at first blush it does not seem like a huge leap from a Q6600.
 
Kirth Gersen said:
Agreed. I think the best bang per buck is looking like an E8400 or E8500. Especially as it comes with 3Mb L2 cache per processor.

Of interest, I note the Q9300 (which is at the same price point as the E8500) has only got an average of 1.5Mb L2 cache per processor. Running at only 2.5 Ghz, at first blush it does not seem like a huge leap from a Q6600.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, the cache doesn't work like that. One processor has access to all 6MB of cache if it needs it. It's one large mass of cache for both chips to share.
 
Yes it's shared cache, AMD were the first to do it and Intel originally thought it wasn't worth it, but changed their minds lol

Does anyone know if there is a difference between the E8400 and Xeon E3110? They're exactly the same specs, but the Xeon is $5 more and is released later on.
 
Skyboat said:
Does anyone know if there is a difference between the E8400 and Xeon E3110?
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is relevant but I read that some of the existing Xeons are optimised towards server/workstation activities and actually run slower in normal things like games but are slightly faster in things like Folding @ Home and video encoding.

Perhaps someone more knowledgable on the different Xeons can comment further.
 
lowrider007 said:
This is exactly the point, I've said this before on here, I don't get allot of you guys that say getting the quad core is sensible because in the future it may be utilized properly, so you use the excuse of future proofing but thats silly as we know pretty much everyone on here will have changed their CPU's at least twice over (proberbly more tbh) before that happens, so I say it makes sense to get the best chip that's going to enhance your performance right now, not 2 years down the road.

I blame easyrider tbh, he forces people to get quad cores, I've seen him do it :p.



*yes I know some of you may need quad core for Graphics/Video work, in those circumstances quad core is a sensible choice.
Click to expand...


Can't we all just buy what we feel represents the best value for our hard earned bucks and live and let live? I got a Q6600 because I usually keep processors for a couple of years before I do RAM/BOARD/CPU upgrade so it represented better value for me than a dual core when I assess my future needs.
 
I hate it when people defend purchases as it's truly pathetic, but as long as you don't do it yourself then don't give a flying **** what ANYONE else has to say on the matter. Easyrider is one of the ones who fails in this respect.
 
tbz_ck said:
Can't we all just buy what we feel represents the best value for our hard earned bucks and live and let live? I got a Q6600 because I usually keep processors for a couple of years before I do RAM/BOARD/CPU upgrade so it represented better value for me than a dual core when I assess my future needs.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people defend purchases as it's truly pathetic, but as long as you don't do it yourself then don't give a flying **** what ANYONE else has to say on the matter. Easyrider is one of the ones who fails in this respect.
Click to expand...

... but the debate is good - that's why we're here :). Nothing wrong with people putting forward strong arguments for their point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom