• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel Penryn Quad Cores

C

crazymonkee84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
506
When are the penryn quad cores coming out? I read november 11th of last year a while back but I haven't really seen it anywhere. If it hasn't come out yet, when will it be?
Thanks in Advance
 
No one knows for sure. March/April most likely. The Extreme ones are already out though, if you want to spend $1000.
 
I'm looking to buy a quad core based computer right now. Would it be worth it to wait it out for the new penryn cpus or would I be good to go with the current intel quad cores? Also, do you know around where the price range would be for these newer cpus?
 
There are a number of pricing charts around, but this is the only one I can find at the moment:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13878

The Q6600 is a good CPU (and there's no reason to buy any other Kentsfield, if you overclock), but obviously you would benefit by waiting for the 45nm CPUs - they are a bit faster clock-for-clock, and run cooler. The Q9300 has low L2 cache though, so if you were looking at getting the Q9450, that's expected to cost in the region of $316 - more than the Q6600 does now.

This close to launch, I'd wait, unless it's essential you buy it now.
 
nandaman said:
I'm looking to buy a quad core based computer right now. Would it be worth it to wait it out for the new penryn cpus or would I be good to go with the current intel quad cores? Also, do you know around where the price range would be for these newer cpus?
Click to expand...

If by right now you mean this month, then get a Q6600. If you can wait until March, it may be worth waiting - the Penryn's should run cooler and overclock better (although with low multipliers), but judging by how pricing is on the E8400s, I doubt you'll get one at Intel's price.

Hmmm, kinda sounds like the Q6600 might be the way to go.
 
If you're looking to overclock, the Q6600 will have more headroom than the Q9450, which has a lower multiplier. You'll need better cooling to get a good OC out of a Q6600 (compared to a Q9450,) but you'll be able to take the Q6600 higher. Otherwise, the Q9450 will run cooler and is benefited by SSE 4.1 and about a 5% performance benefit clock per clock. However, expect it to be around $100 more expensive than the Q6000 at launch.
 
Ok, well I think I'm going to buy a CPU now and then buy the newer quad core in March. Would it be worth it to get the Q6600 or the E8400? Please respond and thanks.
 
nandaman said:
Ok, well I think I'm going to buy a CPU now and then buy the newer quad core in March. Would it be worth it to get the Q6600 or the E8400? Please respond and thanks.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing - if you multitask very heavily and use programs that can make use of more than 2 cores, does professional amounts of video or audio editing, or something else ridiculous then quad core is worth it.

If you're an average user who doesn't play Crysis or SupCom, does some Photoshop, surfs the web, and maybe occasionally edits some video, then dual core will be fine for you.
 
Oh, thanks. Well I mainly use it for gaming. No video editing at all. I would also like to play Crysis on high settings, but if not well.. that's ok. So Dual core is the way to go?
 
Whether or not you can play Crysis on high settings has much more to do with the video card you have than the processor.
 
nandaman said:
Oh, thanks. Well I mainly use it for gaming. No video editing at all. I would also like to play Crysis on high settings, but if not well.. that's ok. So Dual core is the way to go?
Click to expand...

If you don't have a job that depend on a new computer, then wait for another 2months. Are you planning to upgrade from your old computer or totally assembling a new one? If you are upgrading, just get yourself a new video card for the time being and wait for the new quad core. I don't see the point of buying a core2duo now and 2 months later waste more money on a quad core. If money is no object to you then I'll just shut up.
 
You're totally right, it is a waste of money and money is definitely something I don't have a lot of. I'll just stick with the e8400. Thanks.
 
Markyip1 said:
If you're looking to overclock, the Q6600 will have more headroom than the Q9450, which has a lower multiplier. You'll need better cooling to get a good OC out of a Q6600 (compared to a Q9450,) but you'll be able to take the Q6600 higher.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Q9450 will likely have about the same headroom as the Q6600 (~1.0-1.2GHz on air), you'll just need a board able to hit 450MHz+ FSB speeds with Quads to take advantage of that headroom.
 
No it won't. Most G0 Q6600s can reach 3.6ghz on high end air, and many can do 3.8-4.2ghz stable on water. The max you will likely a reach on a Q9450 is 3.6ghz, as any higher and you'll be limited by the motherboard due to the lower multiplier.

If most motherboards top out at 450mhz with a quad, 450x9 = 4050mhz for the Q6600 G0. This is achievable with a good chip and a good water setup. The best motherboards can pull off a 470-475mhz FSB with a Quad, but you'll need golden chipset to get anything higher. 475x9 = 4275mhz. That's just about as high as I've seen a stable G0 Q6600 on air or water.

The Q9450 has an x8 multiplier. 450x9 = 3600mhz. Already, you're 400mhz lower and you've reached the top of most motherboards. Even if you can pull off 475mhz on the FSB, you're stuck at 3800mhz. No motherboard currently available or in the pipeline (at least until P45) can do a 500mhz FSB with a quad, which would be required for the Q9450 at 4ghz.

The chip itself is quite capable. Indeed, it's a shame that it's paired with a lower multiplier. While the Q9450 will run cooler and has the benefit of a 5% performance increase clock per clock and SSE4, it will not clock as high as Q6600. Now no one knows what P45 will bring, as that's still a few months away from release (assuming no delays.) But most speculation is that a chipset capable of hitting a 500mhz+ FSB with a quad reliably and regularly is still a good ways away.
 
Thanks for the response Markyip1 - point taken. A few things:

A. I did say 'on air'.
B. I did imply you'd need a very good motherboard simply by saying you'd need an FSB of 450+ with a Quad.
C. Good point on WC, I did not take that into consideration (since the last time I ran on water was a few years ago).

It will be interesting to see what FSBs will be reachable with the Q9450. I haven't done enough comparisons on top FSBs for 65nm Quads vs 45nm Quads (only 1 avail. retail atm) - clearly I need to look more closely at that.
Cheers,
AJ
 
One problem with locked Q9xxx series processors is that they have lower multipliers than the older 1066MHz FSB Q6600. The newer Q9xxx series uses 1333MHz FSB's and because of this they have lower multipliers and thus they'll need to be clocked to high FSB speeds than the 1066MHz chips do. The problem is that most motherboards out now don't overclock quad core CPUs very well.

The QX9650 and QX9770 processors don't have that issue obviously due to being unlocked but few people can afford those processors.
 
Dan_D said:
One problem with locked Q9xxx series processors is that they have lower multipliers than the older 1066MHz FSB Q6600. The newer Q9xxx series uses 1333MHz FSB's and because of this they have lower multipliers and thus they'll need to be clocked to high FSB speeds than the 1066MHz chips do. The problem is that most motherboards out now don't overclock quad core CPUs very well.

The QX9650 and QX9770 processors don't have that issue obviously due to being unlocked but few people can afford those processors.
Click to expand...
Hence the need for Hardocp.com to tell us which motherboards can hit 1800+MHz FSB on the Intel QX9650 and QX9770. :)
 
I just put a new rig together with Q6600
my video card is the Nvidia 8800 GTS
I have 4 GB DDR2 ram
and using Vista premium for the first time

I also play Crysis on HIGH settings. No problem.
 
Markyip1 said:
Whether or not you can play Crysis on high settings has much more to do with the video card you have than the processor.
Click to expand...

Correct. Video card makes all the difference but processor makes very little difference in my testing.
 
And over at AT they are saying the P45 has been delayed till late Q2 (May/June) :(

This suXors, both delayed Quads and even more delayed boards that will likely work best with the new Quads.
 
Frankly, Intel doesn't need a new chipset on the market right now unless it has something major to offer.
 
Intel doesn't, but we might - since this chipset might get us to higher FSBs w/Quads (and probably at a lower cost than the X48).
 
AJL said:
Intel doesn't, but we might - since this chipset might get us to higher FSBs w/Quads (and probably at a lower cost than the X48).
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible. It may also just be a version of the P35 chipset that offficially supports 1600MHz FSB's for the QX9770 processor. That's the only difference between the X38 and X48 chipsets.
 
Dan_D said:
I suppose it's possible. It may also just be a version of the P35 chipset that offficially supports 1600MHz FSB's for the QX9770 processor. That's the only difference between the X38 and X48 chipsets.
Click to expand...

I hear that the P45 chipset will be fabbed with a 65nm process. If that is true, the FSB should have more headroom.
 
i thought duo core processors that could be overclocked higher like the E8400 were better for gaming than the quads like the q6600 ??? am I mistaken - ill be building a new rig in a few weeks and want to know the correct info... - I was plannin on buyin a new E8400 and overclock it.
 
n1k0l1 said:
i thought duo core processors that could be overclocked higher like the E8400 were better for gaming than the quads like the q6600 ??? am I mistaken - ill be building a new rig in a few weeks and want to know the correct info... - I was plannin on buyin a new E8400 and overclock it.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking dual core is great for games and clock speed is king. Some games do bennefit from quad core though and there are two I know of that bennefit some from 8 cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top