Intel's New Quad in November

[MarkG]

It's a shame the multithreaded software isn't coming out as fast as the hardware - I'm sure the games compnaies will start to produce more 'Quad' titles now they are learning to programme the consoles.

It's not a matter of what they know how to program. Game companies develop games for the hardware that their customers will have; there's no point developers aiming for an octo-core 5GHz CPU if 99% of their sales will be to people with single-core 2GHz CPUs.

As a result, games are almost always a couple of years behind the hardware. They might have a 'bells and whistles' mode that adds extra eye-candy for fast systems, but standard gameplay is almost always going to be aimed at hardware from 2-3 years ago.

 

[gamebro]

Raid 0 without backup = bad, very bad

I've never actually heard that before
Is it because they die out quicker, or are inefficient at storing data? I planned on getting like 2x 250gb hard drives and raiding them for a boost in games, would I really need a 3rd hd?


Oh and back on topic--

I think games are more then 2-3 years behind in technology ATM.... We've had 64bit CPU's for what? 4 years now and still hardly any games that utilize them... I certainly hope it does not take long for games to utilize quad core Penryns, though we do know quads are going to be highly used by games starting with Crysis.

I think a lot of gamers will do exactly what I am planning on doing now, wait until November, see the early benchmarks on Crysis.

How will it perform on a Extreme Penryn, vs how will it perform on the Q6600.

If Crysis performs about the same on both (when clocked to similar levels) then yeah I think the Q6600 might be the way to go for the next year to save mooonay!$$$
However, if there is a magical difference, with Penryn blasting away the Q6600, then I think the affordable Penryns in Jan, are certainly worth waiting for.

And let's not forget the wildcard in this play--- Phenom.... If you end up waiting for a Peny, then you will also get a chance to see if Phenom is worth the silicon it is written on
Also- should the 9800GTX\GTS cards come out in late Jan\early Feb, this whole problem just gets even more fudged up then it already is! You can't wait forever to buy a computer, but there definitely is good times to jump in, and times not to... So..... if those early benches in Nov show a massive gain for Crysis on Peny, then this very well may be a bad time to jump in if you are a gamer..... Would you buy a $250 Q6600, when for $350 you could get a Penryn quad that "might" blast it away? That's the problem here. =\

Hey, I've said it before and I'll say it again... Crysis is coming out 2 months too early

 

[enewmen]

I don't think there will be much difference between the Q6600 and Yorkfield extreme in Crysis.
However, I think Crysis will use all 4 cores. So the Q6600 will see some benifit over the C2Ds and a WHOLE lot of improvement over the 32 bit Pentium 4s. I will personaly get the Yorkfield (even if it costs more)
About GPUs, I think the next gen DX10 cards (like a 9800GTX/ 2950XT) will be much better than the 8800 GTX (maybe not much faster). But will be at least more mature with Vista, have some performance bottlenecks removed, use less watts, and have features future games will use. The major video card updates won't come until 2009.
If don't care about bleeding edge, just get a good card and you can still play the game at less than MAX settings.

 

[Evilonigiri]

Just wondering, whatever comes out after the Penryn won't work on my 775LGA Gigabyte motherboard?

 

[pausert20]

That would be the Nehalem processor. Yeah, we all will have a lot to bitch about Intel on changing sockets for Nehalem. I have read that their will be 3 to 4 new sockets introduced over a 18 month time frame. Even the Engineers at Intel are complaining about this one. :|

 

[San Pedro]

Dragonsprayer, I don't think 2x 2900xts make sense at this juncture in time. In a month and a half we will see the 55nm revisions that are going to consume far less power and create far less heat.

 

[justinmcg67]

If AMD hits the **** than they could always do what Chrysler did to save their behind...ask the government for money!! Trust me...AMD isn't going anywhere.

 

[spaztic7]

I really dont think raid 0 is that bad. Yeah if a hard drive fails you lose your data (if it is striped), but then again if you have only one hard drive and it fails... you lose all your data. Raid 0 just gives you a great deal of more speed (if it is striped)

 

[tcman41]

My current computer:
asrock dual vista motherboard
2x1gb ddr2-400 memory
amd fx55 cpu
nvidia 7900gto 320mb agp graphics card
xp pro 32bit

Computer i would build now
Abit ip35 pro motherboard
4x1gb ddr2-800 memory
intel q6600 quad core 65mm
nvidia 8800gts 640mb pci-e graphics card
vista ultimate 32bit

Computer i would build in January:
Asus motherboard (not sure which one)
4x1gb ddr-1066 memory
intel q9450 quad core 45mm
nvidia 9800 card (not sure which one)
vista ultimate 64bit

All totaled the computer i would build now with the q6600 quad core and nvidia 8800gts 640mb would cost me about $1,400.

The computer i would build in january with the q9450 quad core and nvidia 9800gts 320mb would cost me about $1,600.

Should i go ahead now with the q6600 / 8800gts machine now or wait until january and build the q9450 / 9800 gts machine?

There really isn't big rush for me to build one now, my fx55 / 7900gto plays most of my games at moderate to high screen resolutions without any problems, the new machine is more the newer dx10 games coming out like crysis and the rest.

All comments welcome.
TC

 

[dashbarron]

Questions and comments if I may:

It seems to be the pricing for the Penryn's will be damn near the same as the Core 2's now, no? Maybe on the lower end there will be a difference, but the $1000 for the high-end seems pretty close!

Now, I may have gone skimpy on my reading, but does anyone have an idea when the three Quad's from the top will be released? The 9550, 9450, and the 9300? It would be nice to get one of those as it is a considerable price drop from the 9650 priced model. Anyone have a specific date?

Oh, and one more trifle. Anyone know when Nvidia has plans for a new chipset release? I can't see the sense of getting a P-35 if it doesn't have SLI, let alone x16 full.

 

[Kamrooz]

I really dont think raid 0 is that bad. Yeah if a hard drive fails you lose your data (if it is striped), but then again if you have only one hard drive and it fails... you lose all your data. Raid 0 just gives you a great deal of more speed (if it is striped)

It's not all that simple. It doesn't have anything to do with just hard drives failing. A raid 0 array can fail even with both hard drives working perfectly still. Raid 0 doesn't have any data protection what so ever..I've have raid 0 setups on me go caput on a system lock up. On start up the drive isn't recognized. Had to use raid recovery and GetDataback applications in order to grab my files..Luckily the software detected the raid..otherwise I would of lost everything. Raid 0 might have performance increases..But it is prone to more problems then just a hard drive dying to cause problems...The raid can still fail while both drives are working...which is a very scary process...

 

[enewmen]

Can the Yorkfield run in a Asus P5B Deluxe? (p965 chipset)?
The FSB can easily do 1333 Mhz and the P5B can run a 45nm CPU - I did check the Asus web-site. The website says nothing about Yorkfield and says the P5B does not run "quad core" strange!

 

[Jase555]

It's not all that simple. It doesn't have anything to do with just hard drives failing. A raid 0 array can fail even with both hard drives working perfectly still. Raid 0 doesn't have any data protection what so ever..I've have raid 0 setups on me go caput on a system lock up. On start up the drive isn't recognized. Had to use raid recovery and GetDataback applications in order to grab my files..Luckily the software detected the raid..otherwise I would of lost everything. Raid 0 might have performance increases..But it is prone to more problems then just a hard drive dying to cause problems...The raid can still fail while both drives are working...which is a very scary process...

I agree. Our workstations are now 3 yrs old and every machine has had at least one issue with the raid0 setup. That's not neccessarily a bad thing as the speed increase is very welcome and the risk of loosing data is why each machine has it's disk imaged and all data/work is subject to end of day backup and archiving. If the raid0 fails due to a hd going down than replace the disk and restore the image. If it's due to the above issue then just replace the image.

OMHO any disk and no backup = bad news
What the original poster should have said is there is no substitute for a tested data backup policy.

 

[spaztic7]

I agree. Our workstations are now 3 yrs old and every machine has had at least one issue with the raid0 setup. That's not neccessarily a bad thing as the speed increase is very welcome and the risk of loosing data is why each machine has it's disk imaged and all data/work is subject to end of day backup and archiving. If the raid0 fails due to a hd going down than replace the disk and restore the image. If it's due to the above issue then just replace the image.

OMHO any disk and no backup = bad news
What the original poster should have said is there is no substitute for a tested data backup policy.

I can agree that there is no backup if something dose go wrong. But I do not care if it all fails because I will just reinstall and be on my way. For my, my safe files are on my laptop and backed up on flash drives and cds as I need it to be done. I had one issue with the raid 0 collapsing on my machine but all I did was re-enable the motherboard to do raid and it went right into windows after that.

I debated this before I built my system and found that it is worth doing raid 0 if you are not doing mission critical work on it..... and sorry to say, but gaming is not mission critical.

 

[enigma067]

Intel plans to release the first 45nm desktop CPU, the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 on November 11, according to sources at motherboard makers.

The quad-core CPU will offer a frequency of 3.0GHz with 1333MHz FSB and 12MB L2 cache. As is typical for products in the Extreme series, pricing for the CPU will be set at US$999 in 1000-unit tray quantities.

In an update to previous reports, three 45nm quad-core CPUs (Yorkfield) and another three 45nm dual-core CPUs (Wolfdale) for desktops will be launched in January next year, noted the sources.

The three quad-core CPUs will include the Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz, 12MB L2 cache), Q9450 (2.66GHz, 12MB) and Q9300 (2.5GHz, 6MB), with pricing expected at US$530, US$316 and US$266 in 1000-unit tray quantities, respectively.

The three dual-core CPUs will include the Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16GHz, 6MB L2 cache), E8400 (3.0GHz) and E8200 (2.66GHz) priced at US$266, US$183 and US$163 in 1000-unit tray quantities, respectively. Plans also include a fourth dual-core CPU, the E8300 (2.83Ghz, 6MB), but pricing and availability have not yet been set.

All the 45nm desktop CPUs will support Intel Virtualization technology, Intel Trusted Execution technology, Intel Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Intel 64 technology and Execute Disable Bit.

Intel declined the opportunity to respond to this report saying it cannot comment on unannounced products.

Dude can't wait,,,,btw does anybody want to buy my q6600? lol :lol:

====

Why can't Intel duke it out with AMD on the same Process level?

Moving to a smaller process and larger cache doesn't make a CPU go faster, it only makes it smaller. It also makes it more expensive.

You can keep the q6600 package. I think Intel's been sniffing to much glue.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/message/icon14.gif

Sorry, Intel just doesn't impress me with the bad decisions they make.

 

[chicagosoftplan]

====

Why can't Intel duke it out with AMD on the same Process level?

Moving to a smaller process and larger cache doesn't make a CPU go faster, it only makes it smaller. It also makes it more expensive.

You can keep the q6600 package. I think Intel's been sniffing to much glue.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/message/icon14.gif

Sorry, Intel just doesn't impress me with the bad decisions they make.

On the contrary, moving to a smaller process makes the processors LESS expensive. Moving to a smaller process doesn't make them faster, however this does offer the potential to run faster, and at a lower voltage. The current Intel 45nm engineering samples are overclocking past 4 Ghz on air.

 

[Slobogob]

====

Why can't Intel duke it out with AMD on the same Process level?

Moving to a smaller process and larger cache doesn't make a CPU go faster, it only makes it smaller. It also makes it more expensive.

Sorry, Intel just doesn't impress me with the bad decisions they make.

I'm quite impressed. Really. With such a vast knowledge about computers and economics i'm still wondering how you even managed to log in.
Sometimes i hate capitalism. Especially now since AOL obviously started to hook up caves with fast broadband internet access.
Am i going mental or is the computer industry really starting to become more like a sports league or a pop group with fans, groupies and cheerleaders?

 

[zenmaster]

No, Gaming is not mission critical, bit it also fails to gain much from RAID-0 inside of the game since the gaming process itself is not HDD intensive. Mostly GPU, then CPU, and lastly HDD.

It can gain you boot times (Once a month with patches or so), or the game may start a couple seconds faster, etc.. but If I'm getting ready to game for a couple hours, starting in 12 secs vs 16secs really does not matter much.
There are even cases in which RAID-0 is slower than a single drive.

It will take a long long time for stuff to add up to the time to re-install and re-configure everything.

 

[General_Disturbance]

Not good for AMD...

Not good for us either. Intel is feeling little to no competitive pressure from AMD, and so they are releasing the QX9750 3.2GHz Yorky in Q1 at $1399 USD per 1000. Usually their new chips, like the QX9650 are released at 999 per 1000.
The QX9775 will be 1499!

http://wwww.vr-zone.com/articles/Core_2_Extreme_QX9775_Price_Tops_%24_1499/5354.html


And in other news:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6933.html

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6935.html

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6934.html

 

[enewmen]

Not good for us either. Intel is feeling little to no competitive pressure from AMD, and so they are releasing the QX9750 3.2GHz Yorky in Q1 at $1399 USD per 1000. Usually their new chips, like the QX9650 are released at 999 per 1000.
The QX9775 will be 1499!

http://wwww.vr-zone.com/articles/Core_2_Extreme_QX9775_Price_Tops_%24_1499/5354.html


And in other news:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6933.html

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6935.html

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6934.html

In January, Intel is going for the kill releasing mid-range Yorkfields for $~300.
But yes. I agree $1499 for a QX9775 is silly.

 

[spaztic7]

No, Gaming is not mission critical, bit it also fails to gain much from RAID-0 inside of the game since the gaming process itself is not HDD intensive. Mostly GPU, then CPU, and lastly HDD.

It can gain you boot times (Once a month with patches or so), or the game may start a couple seconds faster, etc.. but If I'm getting ready to game for a couple hours, starting in 12 secs vs 16secs really does not matter much.
There are even cases in which RAID-0 is slower than a single drive.

It will take a long long time for stuff to add up to the time to re-install and re-configure everything.

K... I can agree that once you are in the game, you will not get any performance gains from it, other then load times. I do agree that this is probably the only thing you will see an advantage with raid, but I also see it as the hd are not working as hard and this can add to longer hd life (you have two heads searching for information cutting down the time it would normally take to find data and thus not spinning at full speed as much.) but I may be wrong about this.

But the biggest thing for me is the load time. If you do not want to wait, raid can give you a boost. I hate waiting in game for anything to load. If I have to wait then I would rather wait 12 second then 16. That is 4 seconds sooner that I get to play. This may sound dumb but would you rather wait longer for something or not? At the end of day, this is all personal preference.