Q9450 new revision

M

MUCHO

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
501
Anyone know when the next revision of the Q9450 is coming out? I hate to buy the first revision.
 
MUCHO said:
Anyone know when the next revision of the Q9450 is coming out? I hate to buy the first revision.
Click to expand...

What the....?

Does the Q9450 have any issues lke the Phenom did? No, so why would there be a revision ?
 
Not sure if its exactly a new revision or not, but sometime around July Intel is dropping both the q9450 and q9300. In place of both these cpu's they will be introducing the q9400.

Not sure if the q9400 has much changed from the q9450???
 
I'd post a link if I could find one, but if I remember it correctly, the stepping isn't R0, it was E0 and was to include new powerstate like C2E, C3, and C4 which gave it extended stop grant state, deeper sleep state, and something else I can't remember. They also added two new instructions, some changes in the PECI, and something else.

Anyway, I wouldn't put off a new purchase waiting for these chips since:

1) Socket 775 will be dead in Q3 or Q4 when the first Nehalem chips hit the market
2) MB manufactures (most of them) will take weeks if not months to release a beta BIOS to support the new stepping
 
Wildfire788 said:
I lol'd.

OMG what are we all doing with DDR2 it's totally dead now that DDR3 is out!!!1111oneone
Click to expand...

Should have clarified that socket775 is dead development-wise. In other words, there aren't going to be new chipsets once the Nehalem stuff starts coming out. I think P45 is the final incarnation of a socket-775 board.
 
True, there were no faster DDR2 speeds intro'ed after DDR3 hit the market, either. :p

It'll be the end of next year before the majority is moving to Nehalem archs, esp. as (I'm betting) there'll be a price premium. Intel has AMD down, and might as well rake in the rewards for a bit.
 
I'm looking at the Q9450 which is why I asked. Doesn't look like the information is public anyways at this point.
 
I have been sitting on my E6600 since the launch of the conroe. I really do not see the purpose of owning a quad core at this point. That said however I will certainly be running a quad core Nehalem this Winter for sure. I believe that the Nehalem is THE time to get into a quad.
 
bobn4burton said:
Not sure if the q9400 has much changed from the q9450???
Click to expand...

The Q9400 only gets 6mb of cache like the Q9300 instead of 12mb like on the Q9450. The Q9400 is supposed to take the place of the Q9300 since Intel also plans to release a Q9650 now that they have released the QX9770 as the Extreme model to replace the Q9450 and Q9550.
 
trudude said:
I have been sitting on my E6600 since the launch of the conroe. I really do not see the purpose of owning a quad core at this point. That said however I will certainly be running a quad core Nehalem this Winter for sure. I believe that the Nehalem is THE time to get into a quad.
Click to expand...

I sort of see what you mean.

A little OT....
I just built a Q9300 which I run at 3.0Ghz, so a 20% overclock with a 400FSB. Other than encoding, I don't feel a difference in Windows between this and my old socket 754 AMD. I only notice the speed when encoding x264, which takes a lot less time. However, it still means I have to come back a couple hours later or run it overnight. So the difference between this Q9300 and anything Intel can dish out with the Nehalem means nothing to me. Until a 16-core processor comes out where I can sit and *wait* for my encodes to finish quickly while looking at the screen, it won't mean anything to me. I still will queue them up and walk away. We've now hit the point of diminishing returns.

That being said, I still like my Q9300. :D
 
Well I've been rnning my Rev C1 9450 in an Asus P5K Premium WiFi mobo for several weeks now and have noticed one thing. It may be the settings I'm useing for memory or something but the 9450 at stock FSB and multi (2.66ghz) will crunch a FAH WU in the same amount of time as a Q6600 running at 3.2ghz. I dare say that have a 12MB on die cache is what tips the scales but the 9450 is very nice chip in my opinion.
 
trudude said:
I have been sitting on my E6600 since the launch of the conroe. I really do not see the purpose of owning a quad core at this point. That said however I will certainly be running a quad core Nehalem this Winter for sure. I believe that the Nehalem is THE time to get into a quad.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your statement... why would a Nehalem quad beat a Yorkfield quad? There will be no more software capable of using four cores when Nehalem launches. Will the Nehalem be faster than a Yorkfield? Probably... but not *that* much faster. To me, the hardware is out-pacing the software by a year or two.

Also, I'd advise against getting the first incarnation of a new CPU/chipset. You don't need to look to far back in time to see that there will be iterative bugfix processors/chipsets 6-9 months after launch... if you have a real need to upgrade, that might be a different story, but you sound pretty content with your dual core chip at the moment.
 
This AnandTech article has some really good information including benchmarks that compare a Nehalem locked at 2.66ghz against a Yorkfield Q9450 at the same speed through various benchmarks. So far it seems as though the Nehalem is a complete technological leap for Intel, similar to Core 2 from the Pentium architechture.
 
KrylonArt said:
This AnandTech article has some really good information including benchmarks that compare a Nehalem locked at 2.66ghz against a Yorkfield Q9450 at the same speed through various benchmarks. So far it seems as though the Nehalem is a complete technological leap for Intel, similar to Core 2 from the Pentium architechture.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is the single-threaded performance, which is barely any better; it appears that you can get much better performance from Nehalem, but only if the application is well-multithreaded (all the other tests are those which are ideally suited to multi-threaded applications). The Nehalem versus Core 2 argument is similar to the Quad vs Dual argument - you'll see a big improvement if you use multithreaded programs, little if they're single-threaded. There should be an increasing move in that direction, of course.
 
+1 for Mithent's discussion... again, until the software is natively multithreaded, a quad yorkfield and a quad Nehalem are more or less the same. This is probably be true for at least one if not several years.
 
GenBanks said:
Judging by this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326 the difference between Nehalem and what has come before will be big enough to warrant the
statement.

DDR 2 vs. DDR 3 isn't an accurate comparison since there is no real world performance gain between the two.
Click to expand...
Care to back that up with a link showing the highest-rated DDR3 vs the highest-rated DDR2 showing no performance gain?

Just for grins - I like to learn. :p
 
from what i have read; there are slight performance gains, but not worth the extra cost compared to DDR2. just as from what i read the performance gain of a Q9450 is not worth the extra cost over a Q6600; but I could be wrong. IMO every little bit adds up
 
graysky said:
I don't understand your statement... why would a Nehalem quad beat a Yorkfield quad? There will be no more software capable of using four cores when Nehalem launches. Will the Nehalem be faster than a Yorkfield? Probably... but not *that* much faster. To me, the hardware is out-pacing the software by a year or two.

Also, I'd advise against getting the first incarnation of a new CPU/chipset. You don't need to look to far back in time to see that there will be iterative bugfix processors/chipsets 6-9 months after launch... if you have a real need to upgrade, that might be a different story, but you sound pretty content with your dual core chip at the moment.
Click to expand...
Well as far as I know the Nehalem will offer at the least 50% performance improvements over the Yorkfield at the exact same clock speeds. So if that is any indication...just imagine how fast these things will be when you overclock the higher end ones into the 4.0-4.5Ghz range. That coupled with triple channel DDR3 clocked to 2Ghz and you have a powerhouse. We are talking MASSIVE framerates in the best looking games. Everything else will perform awesomely as well. x264 encoding will be unGodly fast.
 
Down8 said:
Care to back that up with a link showing the highest-rated DDR3 vs the highest-rated DDR2 showing no performance gain?

Just for grins - I like to learn. :p
Click to expand...
I don't think the gains will present themselves until we get our hands on the Nehalem platform. That is gonna be EXTREMELY sweet.
 
trudude said:
Well as far as I know the Nehalem will offer at the least 50% performance improvements over the Yorkfield at the exact same clock speeds. So if that is any indication...just imagine how fast these things will be when you overclock the higher end ones into the 4.0-4.5Ghz range. That coupled with triple channel DDR3 clocked to 2Ghz and you have a powerhouse. We are talking MASSIVE framerates in the best looking games. Everything else will perform awesomely as well. x264 encoding will be unGodly fast.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you will see massive gains in games. IE:massive frame rate differences. Games have shown to be massively GPU bound if anything and the difference between even say 1 ghz in amongst various cpu's yields small if any differences in FPS. At best the difference is 10 or so fps in the best of scenerios (usually theres a 3-4fps difference). Of course nehalem clock for clock in multithreaded games is faster but not to the point where I would drop 1k +300ish for a MB and another 300ish for ddr3 ram at this point.
 
+1 for what Savoy said; GPU's are more important than quad core CPUs for FPS, that's for sure.

My point is that the industry is in serious need of a paradigm shift [software developers] in order to leverage the hardware's power. As it stands right now, there are very few apps that will actually use all four cores efficiently (x264.exe is one of them).
 
just thought i would throw this out there. new revisions do not always mean better performers. i remember when the early opteron 146's were amazing clockers followed by revisions that were much less stellar.
 
trudude said:
Well as far as I know the Nehalem will offer at the least 50% performance improvements over the Yorkfield at the exact same clock speeds.
Click to expand...

From what we can see in the Anandtech article, it has the potential to be 50% or so faster than a Yorkfield in highly-multithreaded applications, which the article is heavily skewed towards. However, the single-threaded benchmark showed little improvement, and so how well-multithreaded the application is is going to be crucial to Nehalem performance. A Core 2 Quad is potentially nearly twice as fast as a Core 2 Duo, but this is only realised in well-multithreaded applications, exactly the ones Anandtech tested Nehalem on.

The effective performance looks to be more like a 6-8 core Yorkfield rather than a CPU that's 50% faster than a Yorkfield. Not many games scale to many cores, and the same problem is going to hit Nehalem. There is surely going to be an increasing movement towards multithreading, but fairly few games currently make good use of more than two cores, and won't show much improvement over Yorkfield or even Wolfdale (and that's if they're not GPU-limited). Nehalem has a lot of potential, but it's going to require programmers to up the ante on multithreading before it can pay off in all applications.
 
What batch is the new rev. I just ordered my Q9450.

batch # : L812b258
version # : E34934-001 1.25V

says it was packed 5/15/08

Is this the new revised chip??
 
@crippy144 - what does CPU-Z say? What does the retail box it came in say is your s-spec?
 
that is the box

The S-Spec is SLAWR

any I dont have it running yet. I have the EVGA 790i Ultra SLI mobo. Im building it when all my liquid cool accessories. I need the tubes,adapter and new coolant..
 
Doesn't the Nehalem finally come w/the memory controller built into the cpu, like the AMD's, which should improved the memory performance?

.
 
Yep its going to be big improvment. AMD saw a huge gain from the on chip memory controller. Ex. AMD X2
 
Mithent said:
From what we can see in the Anandtech article, it has the potential to be 50% or so faster than a Yorkfield in highly-multithreaded applications, which the article is heavily skewed towards. However, the single-threaded benchmark showed little improvement, and so how well-multithreaded the application is is going to be crucial to Nehalem performance. A Core 2 Quad is potentially nearly twice as fast as a Core 2 Duo, but this is only realised in well-multithreaded applications, exactly the ones Anandtech tested Nehalem on.

The effective performance looks to be more like a 6-8 core Yorkfield rather than a CPU that's 50% faster than a Yorkfield. Not many games scale to many cores, and the same problem is going to hit Nehalem. There is surely going to be an increasing movement towards multithreading, but fairly few games currently make good use of more than two cores, and won't show much improvement over Yorkfield or even Wolfdale (and that's if they're not GPU-limited). Nehalem has a lot of potential, but it's going to require programmers to up the ante on multithreading before it can pay off in all applications.
Click to expand...

I would rather have said that the gain was somewhere in the 20-45% range since only 1 test went as high as 44%. I don't know why they said 50%. That's not even a rounded number from the 44.

Also we have no idea how these new chips will overclock since an IMC is now going to be built in the cpu. This may not be a limiting factor since this chip is much larger than a York. It's really not sacrificing space to accommodate the IMC if it had been the same size as the York. At best in perspective if we look at the 45% gain then the 2.6ghz Nehalem will be the equal to a 3.7ghz York. That is quite significant to me.

If you absolutely have nothing now then you have to consider that these chips won't really be available at any affordable price till Q2 next year even though they will be available in Q1. I'm quite positive to say that the mainstream models will be inflated just like the Yorks when they first came out Q1. The Yorks even had an issue and had to be extended on the release date after it was fixed.

I'd say April of next year is when you'll be able to get one for a good price but, that's a whole year away. I currently have a 5 year old cpu and am in desperate need to upgrade so I'm strongly considering the Q6600 since it's about $200 everywhere you look. You can oc this chip to a great extent like 3.6ghz and it won't be a burden to the wallet for something that performs about the same as a York with the exception of a SSE4 coded program which currently are only encoding proggies.

For $200 I see more life in this than I do a Wolf at 4.0ghz for around the same price which will allow me to extend my overall upgrading time to another 2 years from now UNLESS gaming developers right off the bat natively code their stuff for the consideration of quads more so than running 2 main threads which is how the majority of multithreaded games are coded now. I don't see this happening for a long time though. This is the reason why a dualcore shows roughly the same performance as a quad in games that are coded for 4 threads like Supreme Commander because only 2 threads are mainly used where the other 2 threads are only helping threads. The same applies with UT3.

If I were to guess then I'd say that games would start having 4 main threads within another year from now since the majority of gamers now are only running duals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top