Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyone know when the next revision of the Q9450 is coming out? I hate to buy the first revision.
What the....?
Does the Q9450 have any issues lke the Phenom did? No, so why would there be a revision ?
geez a revision after the c1 steppings are finally in stock...
I lol'd.Socket 775 will be dead in Q3 or Q4 when the first Nehalem chips hit the market
I lol'd.
OMG what are we all doing with DDR2 it's totally dead now that DDR3 is out!!!1111oneone
statement.Socket 775 will be dead in Q3 or Q4 when the first Nehalem chips hit the market"
Not sure if the q9400 has much changed from the q9450???
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.
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.
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.
Care to back that up with a link showing the highest-rated DDR3 vs the highest-rated DDR2 showing no performance gain?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.
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.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.
I don't think the gains will present themselves until we get our hands on the Nehalem platform. That is gonna be EXTREMELY sweet.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.![]()
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.
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.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0287628
???
Been in stock for weeks at this price
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.