• 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.

New folding monster?

K

Kendrak

[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2009
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
21,141
taken from: Digitimes

Intel is planning to launch a Core 2 Quad Q8000 CPU series, offering entry-level prices to counter AMD's triple-core CPUs in the mainstream market, according to sources at motherboard makers.

Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in the third quarter this year, supporting FSB up to 1333MHz, L2 cache of 4MB and a core frequency of 2.33GHz. Pricing will be set around US$203 in thousand-unit quantities

In order to separate the Q8000 series from Intel's Q9000 CPU family, the Q8000 CPU series will not support Intel's VT and TXT technology.
Click to expand...

This could be a monster if it works our right....

Or it could make the Q6600 cheaper and thats a good thing too :p I wonder how they OC (evil)

 
Xilikon said:
No VT = no VMWare ;)

Click to expand...

No VT means not being purchased by me and that has nothing to do with folding. I'm just not going to buy a processor for my own usage that is nothing more than a stripped down version of the original. I have uses other than folding for VMs and I don't know what my little garden is going to look like a couple years down the road so I'm going to make sure I have all the features that I might be using.

 
it also has only 4 megs of cache, so it theoretically would be a good bit slower at same clock speeds with regards to FAH

 
schenksmill said:
it also has only 4 megs of cache, so it theoretically would be a good bit slower at same clock speeds with regards to FAH

Click to expand...

Yes, it has less cache, so clock for clock it's going to Fold slower. But less cache means less heat generated, so it might be possible to achieve higher clock speeds to counter having less cache.
 
Parja said:
Yes, it has less cache, so clock for clock it's going to Fold slower. But less cache means less heat generated, so it might be possible to achieve higher clock speeds to counter having less cache.
Click to expand...

fair point....my first want would be to see if it could clock for clock match a Q6600, with the lower cache being balanced out by the improvements in the newer yorkfields, or whether the 2x4 cache in the Q6600 is still superior.

 
schenksmill said:
fair point....my first want would be to see if it could clock for clock match a Q6600, with the lower cache being balanced out by the improvements in the newer yorkfields, or whether the 2x4 cache in the Q6600 is still superior.

Click to expand...

With quads, it's 2x2MB so it's like 2x E4x00 together. Since the pricing is so close to that of a Q6600, it's still not worth it, without talking about a lowly 7x multiplier. To get to 3.2 GHz, you need to do 7x458, which is not always easy due to the ram speed and getting DDR2-1000 RAM for that will negate the savings.

 
I thought they were still keeping the Q6600 around at that price point, but perhaps not after reading this. Wouldn't make sense to me to have two chips so close in specs and so close in price. No VT means I probably won't get one though, unless they update the SMP client and only one is needed for proper ppd.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top