Intel delays 45nm QC...

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780
0
Cites lack of competition from AMD Phenom as a reason for the delay. :ange:

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20071218PD212.html

Intel has recently adjusted its product strategy and will postpone three 45nm quad-core CPUs that were originally scheduled to launch in January next year, according to sources at motherboard makers.

Intel has already notified its partners that it will push back the launch of the three CPUs to February or March next year, depending on AMD's schedule for triple-core and the upcoming Phenom CPUs.

Launching the CPUs now will not benefit Intel much in its battle with AMD, while they could cause damage to Intel's 65nm quad-core CPUs, therefore the company has decided it is in no rush to release new products until AMD is able to present more of a threat.

The three CPUs that Intel plans to delay are the Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550, added the sources.

Intel commented that its launch of 45nm quad-core CPUs for desktops is on track for first quarter 2008, but declined to disclose a specific time
DAMMIT! I was looking forward to getting a Q9450...

Looking further ahead, this could spell bad news for Nehalem as well. If AMD can't get into a competitive position soon, Nehalem can easily be pushed out to 2009 for the very same reasons...
 

Kamrooz

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2007
1,002
0
19,280
0
::sighs::

Well, at least I was planning to wait for nvidia's 9800 as well before I bought my new rig, so it still falls in the same time frame ^_^. lucky for me...
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0
Look past the smokescreen of the Phenom and that looks to me like a great big load of PR bullshit.
I don't believe that for a second! And no, I'm not an AMD fan boy, I'm talking about company politics!
Nobody can argue with Intel over it, as the only people that will know are internal...
If that is true I shall mange mon chapeau ;)
 



Good point, what if Intel is full of BS and is really delaying for another reason.

I'm dissapointed either way. It goes to show you that a CPU market without AMD will lack innovation.
 

atomicWAR

Judicious
Herald
no matter how you fry this bacon up it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth...and just yesterday i said what a bad time it was for a build. apperantly timing just got worse. merry christmas everyone!!!!
 

Pailin

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
849
0
19,010
15
ergh :pfff:

was going to hold out till Jan with my old single core Opty... but March is just too long a wait

Just ordered:

Asus P5K Premium/WiFi-AP Intel P35 Black Pearl Special Edition £109.99
Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz - Retail £129.99
OCZ 2GB (2x1GB) PC2-8500C5 1066MHz SLI-Ready Edition Dual Channel DDR2 £64.99
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB Cache £61.99

The Ltd edition motherboard seems to have a bunch of extra stability based OCing features ^^
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0



Rumors come out about an Intel delay due to an errata in the Yorkfield citing a delay until Feb/March. Intel pushes the launch back to Feb/March due to "lack of competition."

Intel also pushes the launch of the X48 back... to Feb/March because of a Tier 1 Vendors overstock of X38s.

Things just seem to line up too well.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0
Delayed because of lack of competition from AMD. ROFLMAO. Thats a good one. Id say its delayed because of lack of motherboard vendor support. They are all pissed Intel requires a new chipset for just about every friggin new chip they come out with and they cant keep up.

Not this BS again..

QX9650s (You know, those Penryn quads already out) work in P35s, X38s, 780i's, and even some of the 9x5 series motherboards (depending on BIOS updates).

They don't work with 680i. Believe what you will about that (Intel mad at nVidia, etc).
 
Delayed because of lack of competition from AMD. ROFLMAO. Thats a good one. Id say its delayed because of lack of motherboard vendor support. They are all pissed Intel requires a new chipset for just about every friggin new chip they come out with and they cant keep up.

Strange.... My P35 will work just fine.

But we've had this conversation before, too, Ms B.
 

someguy7

Distinguished
Dec 12, 2007
1,186
0
19,310
20
Every post you make is full of utter bullcrap mrsbytch. You say the same fud over and over and over again. The mobos and chipsets for these cpus are out and been out for a while. What they said makes perfect sense. I believe by now they have more then enuff of the new quads to launch. It must be killing you inside that you actually have intel inside your machine.
 



If it is true that Intel screwed up that's too bad. However, Intel is in a position where they can screw up. Heck, Intel has proven that they are able to push an inferior product and people will trip over each other to buy it. AMD does not have the luxury.

This is good news for AMD if true. AMD needs a break (although all the "bad things" that happen to AMD are of their own fault).
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0


What's the credebility of this source? Any official anouncement? I have to change my entire build if this is the case and I want to know for sure before I jump and get a Q6600! Damn!
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
Digitimes is credible.
Their sources are hardware vendors in the Far East.
They always get multipel sources and cross-check.

Intel may not have made a public announcement, but its true.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
Oh, and Intel's statement about lack of push from AMD does not sound credible.

The 4nm Quads will be cheaper to produce than the 65nm so Intel wants to get over.

The most likely reasons would seem to be clearing stock prior to their release since the new quads will have higher speeds and lower tray prices which will make them hard to move after the release.

Other reasons could be a request for more time from Mobo makers to verify all of their BIOS for their current boards for this chips.

 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Thanks for the info, zenmaster. Damn, damn, doubledamn. It's all AMD's fault. If Hector hadn't falen asleep at the switch a year and a half ago, there would be competetive presure on Intel, regardless of whether the "lack of push from AMD" story holds water or not. This sounds liek the begining of the monopoly thats going to screw us all up, increasing prices and delaying inovation. Hector desirves to spend the rest of his life in a red cap saying "would you like fries with that?" Eitehr that or being dragged behind a Sporty on my favorite gravel fireroad. :(
 

gpippas

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
463
0
18,790
1
Like TC said there is a positive side to this. It gives Amd a little more time that they didn't previously have.

Personally I believe its perfectly viable for them to delay through lack of competition. I also believe there are other factors involved not just lack of competition.

With Amd currently not really selling any cpu's because of the stop ship and even giving them away for free a full on Penryn assualt wouldn't be far from finishing them off. This in turn would lead Intel to become a monopoly which even they don't want including all of us.

I think nvidia have done the same thing. They have deliberatly delayed products due to lack of competiton. Its funny that out of nowhere the 8800gt arrived just before the 3800 series launch. And now to cement the leadership the 8800gts has been launched but they havn't mentioned anything above that.

My biggest fear now is that when the 65nm chips start becoming in short supply and Intel releases Penryn based cpu's they might increase the price. So the lucky few that can get a 65nm cpu will get it at a cut down price. Which will leave the rest of us with the overpriced 45nm cpu's.
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
You're right gpippas. AMD is a DELETED but their existence as a legitamate competitor did keep Intel on the straight and narrow. If CPUs end up in a monopoly situation gawd save us all. We'll be putting second mortgages on the ranch in order to buy an enthusiast comptuer. Intel is acting this way because they can. After all why not take time to clear out the shelves? What are they going to lose sales to? DELETED Phenoms? Basterdized Barcelonas? Ailing Agenas? Krappedout Kumas? This sux. :(

This is a "family" forum, please bear that in mind when choosing your adjectives, adverbs and nouns
 

LukeBird

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2007
654
0
18,980
0
Well I'd be willing to bet that what I said above is true...
Intel have seen what happened to AMD by admitting that there was a major errata problem and have had the **** pretty much kicked out of them by all.
Intel are obviously in the fortunate position that it isn't too much of a problem if they delay lower clocked 45nm parts. Perhaps they're having problems they don't care to let on about?
As I said, it certainly whiffs more than "no competition"....
Anybody even vaguely involoved in marketing would see that is a great way to increase your dominance, by launching when your competitior is weak.
And no, I don't think that would lead to a monopoly that Intel would be criticised for (a la Microsoft)
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
LukeBird, it could be like if the Pats played the Dolphins and in the forth quarter leading 73-0 they sat their starters. Why bother runing up the score?
 

thematrixhazuneo

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2005
84
0
18,630
0
My opinion would be that there was an alternative reason for the delay other than 'competition' Honestly, if Intel was able to push the 45nm out now they would, first and foremost they will be getting more proc. per wafer, making more money for them. Remember we are talking about companies with bean counters here, regardless if you like AMD or Intel.
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Hey, the way I figure it, it's bean countin alright. Intel looked at the fact that AMD is on the verge of flatlining, saw that DELETED enoms don't work worth a damn and they can't give them away, and figured that they might as well take care of their own more minor erata while not cutting the legs out from under there own Q6600. Just like Belichick wouldnt take the chance of getting Brady hurt on a fluke sack by the Fins when it didn't matter worth squat. Just sit back, take your time, and run out the clock.
 

gpippas

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
463
0
18,790
1


There probably are other reasons to delay back lack of competition could easily be the main one.

Getting 45nm cpu's won't necasserily make that much more money for them because there are still a lot of 65nm cpu's available that havn't been sold. If Intel ramps down production of the 65nm cpu's they can slowly bleed the market until they release 45nm cpu's.

The same thing happens everytime AMD change there skt. Look at skt 939 cpu's. After the switch to AM2, 939 skt cpu's had almost dissapeared within 3 months. The only ones that could be found had tripled in price.

Intel can do exactly the same thing but instead of the 65nm cpu's increaseing in price the 45nm cpu's that replace will. People can complain all they like but there will be no 65nm cpu's left to buy, instead you are only left with the choice buying overpriced cpu's from Intel or mediocre cpu's from Amd.

And the circle of life is complete. We are then back to the pre K8/K7 days.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS