Intel announces 16 new 45nm CPUs

HarryB

New member
Intel's New Processors!! ALL info shamefully stolen from this web site! :worship:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/07/intel_announces_16_new_45nm_cpus_at_ces/1

Intel has announced 16 new 45nm processors today, including its first Penryn family processors for notebooks based on Intel’s Centrino platform.

These notebook processors range from the flagship Core 2 Extreme X9000—which is clocked at 2.8GHz and features an unlocked multiplier—right the way down to the Core 2 Duo T8100 that is clocked at a fairly modest 2.1GHz.

All of the announced notebook processors are dual-core variants and use an 800MHz front side bus. The X9000, T9500 and T9300 feature a 6MB shared L2 cache, while the T8300 and T8100’s L2 cache is just half the size of the 9000-series processors.

Along with the notebook processors, Intel has announced three mainstream quad-core desktop processors, the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – all of which will be available sometime in Q1 2007. The Q9550 and Q9450 feature a 12MB shared L2 cache and are clocked at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, while the Q9300 is clocked at 2.50GHz and features just 6MB of L2 cache.

For those of you that aren’t interested in the quad-core parts, there are four new 45nm dual-core processors: the E8500, E8400, E8200 and E8190. All of these chips have a 6MB shared L2 cache, while the clocks range from 2.66GHz right the way up to 3.16GHz.

The difference between the E8200 and E8190 is small – the model number difference just indicates that there is no support for Intel Virtualisation Technology and Intel Trusted Execution Technology. All of these chips run on a 1333MHz front side bus and prices (in 1,000 unit quantities) range from $530 for the Q9550 to $163 for the E8200/E8190.

Finally, there are also four server processors—three quad-core and one dual-core chip—with clock speeds on the quad-core chips ranging from 2.50GHz to 2.83GHz – just like their desktop equivalents. They’re essentially the workstation equivalents to the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – we’ve included a full break down of the products below.

intel-45nm-ces.jpg
 
name='Bungral' said:
$214 cheaper than its higher clocked bigger brother.

This really
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
es me off. The price hike is ridiculous just to get the next multi up. Same scenario with the E6750 and E6850.

Yes the higher multi should be more expensive, but surely the gaps should be at least equalish.
 
intel know they own the market atm

so they're just juicing it, because of the many, many people out there with lots of money and no brains....
 
name='Ham' said:
This really
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
es me off. The price hike is ridiculous just to get the next multi up. Same scenario with the E6750 and E6850.

Yes the higher multi should be more expensive, but surely the gaps should be at least equalish.

Yeah, it is the way they make their wedge. I mean unless u know how to get the minimalist of oc out of a cpu, u look at hertz per $.

E6750 is/was a well price cpu for the c2d imo. But u`r right, next step up (which is achievable with a small oc) is a heck of alot more, for no real return.
 
When these hit the shops i hopefully will be able to afford a good priced second hand Quad to play with. :yumyum:
 
I really need advice on what to do. I'm still stuck with a skt 939, but was intending to move across to Penryn on skt 775.

With nahalem being on a different socket, is it worth me going penryn at all? I'm quite happy with my system at the moment, and an up to date computer is a waste for me at this moment in time.

So views? Penryn or Nahalem?
 
name='Yeungster' said:
I really need advice on what to do. I'm still stuck with a skt 939, but was intending to move across to Penryn on skt 775.

With nahalem being on a different socket, is it worth me going penryn at all? I'm quite happy with my system at the moment, and an up to date computer is a waste for me at this moment in time.

So views? Penryn or Nahalem?

The Penryn are coming out very soon, Intel has already announced all of them and their rough release dates, See this thread, The Nahalem are coming out 4Q or so I read so if you’re happy with your system hold on :)
 
Which to choose - 9450 or 8500?

I really am in 2 minds. At first I wanted an 8500 3.16 gig, but then I looked at the Q9450 with only 2.66 gig but a 12 meg cache for not much more money? Given that they will both overclock, but a 2 core overclocks easier than a quad, which is the best to go for? I have a n E6850 at the moment and an Asus Maximus formula SE board that takes the 45nm chips. I dont do online gaming but I do play games. I also do quite a bit of video encoding with Nero and quad is supposed to be better for that? If I could afford the Q9550 I would go for that, but a £150 price difference is a bit much, especially with more stuff like Nehalem on the horizon.

Which would you guys go for? My supplier says they should have them on the 30/1 so just a week to go and I need to decide before then. :rolleyes:
 
Decision made

well I went with the C2 Duo 8500. Mainly because it was there and there's no sign of the Q9450 at the moment. Trouble is as soon as I got it my Asus Maximus Formula SE board packed up. The reset button wouldn't work so I couldn't get it to boot or get back into the Bios to change my settings. I bought it from Tekheads and they replaced it with the Maximus Formula they had in stock with no problem.

Thats great customer service, Thanks Tekheads. The new board is running fine with my chip.
 
Gimme a Q9450 nowwww!!!

They have a different socket??

Looks like in stuck with my p5b delx for a while then :rolleyes:

stupid mobo prices
 
name='mrapoc' said:
Gimme a Q9450 nowwww!!!

They have a different socket??

Looks like in stuck with my p5b delx for a while then :rolleyes:

stupid mobo prices

Socket 775 still... No change there.
 
name='mrapoc' said:
Gimme a Q9450 nowwww!!!

They have a different socket??

Looks like in stuck with my p5b delx for a while then :rolleyes:

stupid mobo prices

Ive seen an E800 at 4ghz on a p5b. It may have been 4.5 but i cant remember...
 
Back
Top