# Intel Yorkfield Processors Next Week?



## Jimmy 2004 (Mar 9, 2008)

Following delays due to issues with the processor system bus on Intel's Yorkfield processors, it looks like the 45nm quad-core chips may finally go on sale sometime during the next few days. Industry sources are claiming that the processors have now gone into mass production, meaning the 45nm Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 should be available from next week. The Q9550 and Q9450 will run at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, with a 1333MHz bus and 12MB of L2 cache. The Q9300 will run at 2.5GHz with an L2 cache of 6MB. Intel's official prices for the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 are $530, $316 and $266 respectively. The 45nm manufacturing process should allow the chips to run cooler and potentially allow more headroom for overclocking.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## hat (Mar 9, 2008)

About time. I feel bad for the people waiting for the Yorkfields to come rolling in. As for me, I still want to se 45nm Xeons is LGA775 flavor...


----------



## mandelore (Mar 9, 2008)

about time. If they have sorted the bus issues then everyone is in for some nice high clocking!!

If it were not for my unlocked multiplier on 9650, its have issues coz im struggling to hit 440fsb on this thing (tho its a known issue for the QX9650)

tho peeps who manage 450x9 should expect 4ghz stable on a pleasent 1.35-1.38 volts  at 4ghz i know mine is stable @ 1.38


----------



## evil bill (Mar 9, 2008)

bah, too late for me but tbh Im very happy with my E8200


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Mar 9, 2008)

im somehow feeling the q66000 is still a good buy ...


----------



## btarunr (Mar 9, 2008)

I feel sad for all those who waited long and bought a Q6600. Sure the YF 'locked' chips come with lower multipliers but better models, more variety in the lineup.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.



			
				X-bit Labs said:
			
		

> The 45nm manufacturing process should allow the chips to run cooler and potentially allow more headroom for overclocking.



i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.


----------



## qwerty_lesh (Mar 9, 2008)

ive read some reviews saying the 45nm run hotter then the equivlent 65nm processors
i think these were quad extremes tho...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 9, 2008)

With the High Gate (or die k whatever they call it) process and 45 nm architecture, these should run cooler and oc just as well. That sub 300 for that q9300 is an awesome price.


----------



## KBD (Mar 9, 2008)

Are they gonna release some dual cores as well aside from the e8000 series, cause all i see is quads, which most people dont really need, unless doing heavy multitasking or video encoding?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

most of the dual core 45nm chips have already been released. the reason the 45nm quads are just now being released is because they had to fix a few problems with them before release.


----------



## zOaib (Mar 9, 2008)

i think ill stick with my q6600 for now ...... although i bought mine a whiiile back , first g0 start hittting the market


----------



## KBD (Mar 9, 2008)

i was expecting more duals from the 9000 series, i guess quads are the new thing now


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 9, 2008)

How much is the Q9300?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> How much is the Q9300?





			
				X-bit Labs said:
			
		

> Intel's official prices for the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 are $530, $316 and $266 respectively



$266


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 9, 2008)

Whoa the Q9300 is 266$  I didnt see that in the first post sorry lol I might have to get that instead of a Q6600.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

your q6600 is far better for perfomance and overclockablity.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 9, 2008)

Really? Isnt the Q9300 native and it has a larger cache? I dont really care for overclockability tho.


----------



## flashstar (Mar 9, 2008)

It's not natively quad core. It just has a larger cache and tweaked core. The Q9300 also has a much higher fsb meaning that the multiplier is lower.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 9, 2008)

I love my Q6600 it will take more than the Q9450 to purswade me to part with it.


----------



## evil bill (Mar 9, 2008)

KBD said:


> i was expecting more duals from the 9000 series, i guess quads are the new thing now




you have kind of missed the point then - the E8000 seriers are the Duals and the Q9000 series are the Quads - they both use the 45nm process. The Quads are essentially 2 x E8000 on the same die.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.
> 
> 
> 
> i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.



Agreed, and lets not forget, the 45nm quads have the same 95W TDP rating of the 65nm G0 quad.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Whoa the Q9300 is 266$  I didnt see that in the first post sorry lol I might have to get that instead of a Q6600.



Just bare in mind that if you do, on such a low multi, with less cache than the kentsfield you will get lower performance probably.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

any way you look at it.... your paying more for less. it's just the "NEW" your paying for.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> any way you look at it.... your paying more for less. it's just the "NEW" your paying for.



IMO the only viable options is the 9550 with the 8.5 multi but TBH, as such high prices, it isnt worth the price difference over the Kentsfield for possibly a max of 100-150mhz core speed.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 9, 2008)

awesome - just in time for my trip to Hong Kong next week!!!!!!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2008)

FreedomEclipse said:


> awesome - just in time for my trip to Hong Kong next week!!!!!!



Well if you can get me a Q9550 for £300 or less then get me one as well......cash or paypal no problem


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 9, 2008)

well screw my camera, its about time these came out

were can i buy this?


----------



## Wile E (Mar 9, 2008)

I just bit the bullet, and ordered my QX9650 last night from the egg. These new 9 series quads just don't have any multis I can work with.


----------



## erocker (Mar 9, 2008)

I hope you didn't pay too much.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 9, 2008)

erocker said:


> I hope you didn't pay too much.



$1k  But it was tax money, so it was basically free. lol.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

you can get them from intel direct for $875. i just cant see spending that much. i REALLY wanted the clubIT $299 q6700. if anyone got one..... i'll buy it!!


----------



## Wile E (Mar 9, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> you can get them from intel direct for $875. i just cant see spending that much. i REALLY wanted the clubIT $299 q6700. if anyone got one..... i'll buy it!!



Where can you get it directly from Intel? The only thing I saw them do was list other retailers to buy them from.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

i have a resellers license. i dont order direct alot though. they want you to order a minimum of 10.... i dont have $8000 to spare... nor do i have 9 other buyers.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 9, 2008)

lol. Well then 875 doesn't really apply to me anyway.


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 9, 2008)

@ fitseries3

are you getting any q9450's?


----------



## JamesMichaels (Mar 9, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.
> 
> 
> 
> i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.



Where has this been "proven"?  The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem.  The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling.  478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't.  AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 9, 2008)

mandelore said:


> about time. If they have sorted the bus issues then everyone is in for some nice high clocking!!
> 
> If it were not for my unlocked multiplier on 9650, its have issues coz im struggling to hit 440fsb on this thing (tho its a known issue for the QX9650)
> 
> tho peeps who manage 450x9 should expect 4ghz stable on a pleasent 1.35-1.38 volts  at 4ghz i know mine is stable @ 1.38



id suggest a bios update if any, cause the same happened with the Blitz Extreme.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 9, 2008)

65nm chips dont max out at 478. i have seen a TON of 65nm quads break into the low to mid 5XXmhz range. it's not entirely easy but it can be done with most newer boards. i have seen several reviews that show both the q9450 and q9550 hitting a firm wall at 478mhz FSB. i've also seen that the 45nm cores are only 3-5% better clock for clock. sure it uses less voltage but that also means that you cant(or shouldn't) use as much voltage as say, a q6600 would need to get into the 4ghz range. and another thing.... on my maximus formula my q6600 can run 3.5ghz stable with everything at stock voltages. i have seen a lot of other people who can run3.6ghz on all stock voltage. all im saying is if you already have a q6600 you'd be wasting your money to buy a 45nm quad.


----------



## Solaris17 (Mar 9, 2008)

these prices are going to destroy amd


----------



## Wile E (Mar 9, 2008)

JamesMichaels said:


> Where has this been "proven"?  The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem.  The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling.  478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't.  AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.


3.8 isn't enough for some people. I'd take the higher multi of the Q6600 any day, and throw more volts at it, and have it run hotter. Who cares, as long as you keep the temps acceptable.  

Unless somebody releases a board that can reliably do well over 525 fsb with the 45nm quads, their true potential will never be realized.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 9, 2008)

JamesMichaels said:


> Where has this been "proven"?  The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem.  The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling.  478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't.  AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.



Thats not the case with the 478mhz "wall" on the Q9450 it was found in a number of engineering samples so may not be applicable to the final retail version, but the wall was not a motherboard wall, XTreme systems have been testing 4 different ES chips and on the motherboards they tested them on, Q6600's, Q6700, QX6850's and QX9650's all exceeded 478mhz, only the ES Q9450's could not.

I posted one link on Fitseries "for sale" thread, I havent got that link anymore but I am sure he could post it for you, there were others.....as I said, I am not suggesting that the retail chips will have that wall but the results with the ES chips were quite dissapointing I beleive.


----------



## Duxx (Mar 9, 2008)

Ever think clubit will drop the price on the 6700's again?  I would've picked one up if I got paid early enough


----------



## mandelore (Mar 9, 2008)

Hey Wile E, welcome to the club 

youl get 4ghz easy on 1.35+ volts. I game on mine at 430fsbx10.5 multiplier @ 4.5GHz 

however, with the QX9650, the fsb wall is not strictly to do with the motherboard, its the chip itself. some have gotten higher fsb's on their chips, mine dont like a v high fsb. I struggle with 440fsb. Tho its possible a bios revision may help with that. the 1004 bios is playing nicely with my cpu, no issues so far.


----------



## Fhgwghads (Mar 10, 2008)

Hmmm, swapping out a 4.2ghz q6600 for a 4.2 q9550, guess that would be good for some people. The only new budget yorkie I've seen is the q9300 and that didn't do to well in the over-clocking department, hopefully they got the bugs out since those reviews......I hope, or else I'm waiting for the new extreme editions, guess only time will tell.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Mar 10, 2008)

JamesMichaels said:


> Where has this been "proven"?  The issue has nothing at all to do with the 45nm chips not being able to take the volts to get high clock speeds, the 478Mhz FSB limit is inherit to all current MOTHERBOARDS, not processors, meaning the the Q6600 would have the same problem.  The difference is that you will not be able to get to 478 on a Kentsfield anyway, because of heat, unless you are liquid cooling.  478 Mhz FSB means the Q9450 can hit 3.8Ghz, and it can do it with only a slight vCore increase and it can do it on air, something the 65 nm couldn't.  AND, you seem to be forgetting that the new architecture is faster clock for clock anyway.



Wanna bet lol I got my Q6600@ 4.3ghz 478x9 1.55v with a 0.35v increase on the mch and fsb.
Ok the temps were high and i didnt run a stability test because of the temps but it completed 3dmark06  and scored me 23955 marks the highest on tpu running 38xx series cards. 

Id love to see a Q9450 do that.


----------



## philbrown23 (Mar 10, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> the only good i see from this is the fact that the higher end 65nm quads will drop in price.
> 
> 
> 
> i think not. it's already been proven that the 65nm quads still clock better than the 45nm quads. 45nm chips cant take the voltage required to reach higher clocks. most yorkies have hit a wall at 478mhz FSB. that mixed with a low multi will hinder it's overclocking abilities.



You think fit?? I was going to grab a q9300 but if it is going to clock like crap I'll just pick up a wolfdale or something.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Mar 10, 2008)

like tatty said.... read these...  it's not as good as they hyped it up to be.

http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/281927-45nm-quad-not-good-investment-yet.html

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173287


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 10, 2008)

since i don't have a quad yet would it be worth getting the q9450? i only want to run it at maybe 3.4 same if i got a q6600.


----------



## wolf2009 (Mar 10, 2008)

guess i'll buy q6600 then when it drops to nearly 200 $ .


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 10, 2008)

flashstar said:


> It's not natively quad core. It just has a larger cache and tweaked core. The Q9300 also has a much higher fsb meaning that the multiplier is lower.



The hell with that native quad core crap. Its just a marketing gimmick. Like SLi RAM. If you really want to look at it that way, which quad core is better? AMD's "native" quad core, or Intel's "double" dual core? Looks like Intel has been the winner. And dont say that Im a "fanboy" either. Because I buy w/e is best at the time of my purchase. My last 5 builds have been AMD. 

No matter how you look at it, so long as it is in one processor, it IS a quad core.


----------



## erocker (Mar 10, 2008)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> The hell with that native quad core crap. Its just a marketing gimmick. Like SLi RAM. If you really want to look at it that way, which quad core is better? AMD's "native" quad core, or Intel's "double" dual core? Looks like Intel has been the winner. And dont say that Im a "fanboy" either. Because I buy w/e is best at the time of my purchase. My last 5 builds have been AMD.
> 
> No matter how you look at it, so long as it is in one processor, it IS a quad core.



He was responding to a question, and you post this flame bait post.  This is a warning.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 10, 2008)

mandelore said:


> Hey Wile E, welcome to the club
> 
> youl get 4ghz easy on 1.35+ volts. I game on mine at 430fsbx10.5 multiplier @ 4.5GHz
> 
> however, with the QX9650, the fsb wall is not strictly to do with the motherboard, its the chip itself. some have gotten higher fsb's on their chips, mine dont like a v high fsb. I struggle with 440fsb. Tho its possible a bios revision may help with that. the 1004 bios is playing nicely with my cpu, no issues so far.


With an unlocked multi, I'm not too worried about a high fsb. I have 1200Mhz ram, so I'll put it on a higher strap. At 400fsb, I can run my ram at 1200MHz on the dot. I'll just set it to 400fsb, give or take a few Mhz, and play with the multi.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I just bit the bullet, and ordered my QX9650 last night from the egg. These new 9 series quads just don't have any multis I can work with.



I am very Jelous!  Tax return or not, I still could not justify that kind of outlay for a "light" hobby but well done to you, makes me need to go SLI even more now as I am not gonna get anywhere near your single card score with the Palit's!

What replacements you getting?......8800GT's again or better and did you have to send the fried ones back cause you can appreciate that from the UK thats a costly business!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

freaksavior said:


> since i don't have a quad yet would it be worth getting the q9450? i only want to run it at maybe 3.4 same if i got a q6600.



The Q9450 will be good, I think at even 3.6gig (which probably equates in performance terms to a Q6600 @ 3.7gig), if you are happy with that it should run well and fairly cool and would be a decent investment from say a low to mid ranged duellie although you may be actually better off saving some cash and just going Q9300, you should get a fairly cool and cheap 3.4gig out of that.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 10, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I am very Jelous!  Tax return or not, I still could not justify that kind of outlay for a "light" hobby but well done to you, makes me need to go SLI even more now as I am not gonna get anywhere near your single card score with the Palit's!
> 
> What replacements you getting?......8800GT's again or better and did you have to send the fried ones back cause you can appreciate that from the UK thats a costly business!



No word yet. He only made me send back the 2 that I fried, so I'm guessing more 88GTs.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> No word yet. He only made me send back the 2 that I fried, so I'm guessing more 88GTs.



Thanks, I still have the 2 out of 3 working but I have decided I am going SLi so I will run the 2 cards initially without voltmodding them at say 770 core, then maybe voltmod them after.


----------



## PaulieG (Mar 10, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> IMO the only viable options is the 9550 with the 8.5 multi but TBH, as such high prices, it isnt worth the price difference over the Kentsfield for possibly a max of 100-150mhz core speed.



Completely agree here. At the current asking price for the 9550, it's really not worth upgrading if you've already got yourself a Q6600 or a Xeon x3220, and anything else is really no more than a lateral move.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Mar 10, 2008)

i'm getting me a Q9550


----------



## trt740 (Mar 10, 2008)

There is gonna be a new stepping QX9650 aswell with an improved FSB


----------



## trt740 (Mar 10, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> I am very Jelous!  Tax return or not, I still could not justify that kind of outlay for a "light" hobby but well done to you, makes me need to go SLI even more now as I am not gonna get anywhere near your single card score with the Palit's!
> 
> What replacements you getting?......8800GT's again or better and did you have to send the fried ones back cause you can appreciate that from the UK thats a costly business!



I bought one aswell, and intend to play with it a bunch then sell it got it at near a 40 percent discount. The when the Qx9650 is gone I will get my e8500 at a greatly discounted price.


----------



## X800 (Mar 10, 2008)

So now i am very confused what to buy E9450 or Q6600 or even an X3220 (Xeon version of Q6600)duacore?  .The E9450 was faster at the same clock ,than the Q6600.And what is would be the limiting factor for me becuse i have no experience of intel systems (overcklocking theese new cpus).All intels i had was ages a go.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 10, 2008)

X800 said:


> So now i am very confused what to buy E9450 or Q6600 or even an X3220 (Xeon version of Q6600)duacore?  .The E9450 was faster at the same clock ,than the Q6600.And what is would be the limiting factor for me becuse i have no experience of intel systems (overcklocking theese new cpus).All intels i had was ages a go.



Wait and see I'm betting the Q9450 will do atleast 3.8ghz 24/7 making it a better buy than a Q6600 if not the price of both Q6600 and X3220 will drop and you can still buy one of them. I would wait tell next week and see just how much better intel made the FSB of the Q9450. Then decide what to get. The Best deal on a Quad right now is a X3210, X3220 and Q6600 but in a week it may not be. Also some sites have E8500 dual cores they will do 4.5ghz 24/7 on air, and cost 280.00 shipped those are also very good deals for the fastest Dual Core Cpu ever made.


----------



## zOaib (Mar 10, 2008)

Wile E said:


> $1k  But it was tax money, so it was basically free. lol.



brand new on ebay for 800.00 + free shipping ............ i was lookign at these myself , but cannot justify that huge price for a cpu while mine still kicks ass.

http://cgi.ebay.com/CPU-intel-core-...yZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## trt740 (Mar 10, 2008)

zOaib said:


> brand new on ebay for 800.00 + free shipping ............ i was lookign at these myself , but cannot justify that huge price for a cpu while mine still kicks ass.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/CPU-intel-core-...yZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



yes thats a good deal and a very good seller.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I bought one aswell, and intend to play with it a bunch then sell it got it at near a 40 percent discount. The when the Qx9650 is gone I will get my e8500 at a greatly discounted price.



Barking mad


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

trt740 said:


> yes thats a good deal and a very good seller.



Thats so good I am considering buying all 3!  nice little profit to be made there, easily sell them for £100 profit per chip over here.


----------



## strick94u (Mar 10, 2008)

I'm going back to a 478 hyperthreading cpu I'm sick of all this speed.
I want the coolness of hyperthreading.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 10, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Thats so good I am considering buying all 3!  nice little profit to be made there, easily sell them for £100 profit per chip over here.



well to tell the truth I don't intend to keep it anyway, I'm just gonna use it to make my E8500 cheaper. My X3210 went in about 3 hours for 240.00 so I was able to get my money back on it. It was a rare, rare quad all 4 cores read almost identical temps. I haven't ever seen that before, plus it is a little beast did 1.5 ghz oced over the stock clock.


----------



## iLLz (Mar 10, 2008)

*One thing overlooked...*

One thing overlooked is that the newer chips will have the SSE4 instruction set.  So if you currently don't have a Q6600 the Q9450 and other Yorkfield processors make the most sense.  Some video encoding software is starting to take advantage of these instructions and the benchmarks show 40% + drops in encoding time.  

So this could benefit anyone who uses a digital camcorder or who simply encode dvds.  This is one intriguing aspect of the chip I look forward to most.  

- iLLz


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 10, 2008)

trt740 said:


> well to tell the truth I don't intend to keep it anyway, I'm just gonna use it to make my E8500 cheaper. My X3210 went in about 3 hours for 240.00 so I was able to get my money back on it. It was a rare, rare quad all 4 cores read almost identical temps. I haven't ever seen that before, plus it is a little beast did 1.5 ghz oced over the stock clock.



Yeah, I cant quite manage that accuracy on all 4 cores but still not too bad, just look at the temps at 1.4V at 3.4gig, it's only at that voltage because I was playing around at 3.6gig, she will normally do 3.4 on 1.325V .....with room ambients of 19C.............


----------



## MikeJeng (Mar 10, 2008)

Are these supposed to be G0?



Somebody told me they were "C1"


----------



## wolf2009 (Mar 10, 2008)

iLLz said:


> One thing overlooked is that the newer chips will have the SSE4 instruction set.  So if you currently don't have a Q6600 the Q9450 and other Yorkfield processors make the most sense.  Some video encoding software is starting to take advantage of these instructions and the benchmarks show 40% + drops in encoding time.
> 
> So this could benefit anyone who uses a digital camcorder or who simply encode dvds.  This is one intriguing aspect of the chip I look forward to most.
> 
> - iLLz



that is only if u use divx codec . The codec of the future is H.264 which offers better quality divx at the same bitrate . And it doesn't need sse4 cause its source code(of the x264 encoder) is so well optimized .


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 10, 2008)

http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=Intel+q9450&scoring=p&lnk=next&sa=N&start=0

is it safe to get these from some of the first people because there cheap?


----------



## Wile E (Mar 11, 2008)

trt740 said:


> Wait and see I'm betting the Q9450 will do atleast 3.8ghz 24/7


I seriously doubt that. Not because of the chip, but because you are very lucky to find a mobo that will run a quad at 475 fsb 24/7 stable. It's not even about the model of mobo, it's about the individual mobo. Most mobos will only do 400-420fsb stable with a quad. With good ones doing 440-450, and the ungodly ones doing more than that. It's all about the luck of the draw. If it were me, I'd rather take my chances on the higher multi of the Q6600, unless I already confirmed my board is stable with a quad at the fsb needed for those kinda clocks on a Q9450.



zOaib said:


> brand new on ebay for 800.00 + free shipping ............ i was lookign at these myself , but cannot justify that huge price for a cpu while mine still kicks ass.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/CPU-intel-core-...yZ141323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



Yeah, but that's OEM. Ask around, with my track record, it was worth it for me to spend the extra $200 for the warranty. lol.



wolf2009 said:


> that is only if u use divx codec . The codec of the future is H.264 which offers better quality divx at the same bitrate . And it doesn't need sse4 cause its source code(of the x264 encoder) is so well optimized .


No, that's not true, if anything, H.264 needs the SSE4 optimization more. Not because it's inefficient, but because it's such an intensive codec. Divx/xvid encoding is much faster, due to it's less intensive nature.


----------



## kaneda (Mar 11, 2008)

evil bill said:


> bah, too late for me but tbh Im very happy with my E8200



Nice chip, im happy with my E6300 (400*7, 2.8ghz) and thats over a year old now.

Even with those prices, im still gonna wait for nehalem, its going to be like the jump to core 2 all over again


----------



## X800 (Mar 11, 2008)

Here is the new steppings on intels cpus M1,C1 
http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2774&sSpec=&OrdCode=


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 11, 2008)

were can i buy it though


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 11, 2008)

MikeJeng said:


> Are these supposed to be G0?
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody told me they were "C1"



No G0 stepping was only for the 65nm chips.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 11, 2008)

trt740 said:


> okay my chip QX9650 will do 4.0ghz 10x400 DRR2 1200 at 1.288v so far (nothing new there).The hottest core runs 6 degrees higher than the lowest core of the 4. I have reseated the cooler 3 times and have come to the conclusion this is the same diode problem the wolfdales have. 3 cores are within a degree of each other and one is 6 degrees higher? Still having said this after about 1.3v these chips run hot under load.Also under 1.30v and they are very cool. My chip at 4.0ghz will hit 57c on one core max. These quads remind me of the X3000 xeon series chips. Still this chip seems to fly. Also anyone heard of these chips suddenly dieing when over 1.4v is used on the core. I read it in a post that there is a problem with these chips suddenly dieing when voltage above 1.40v is use.


Where did you see the info about the voltages? Got a link for me? I need to figure that out before I fry a $1000 cpu. lol.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 11, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Where did you see the info about the voltages? Got a link for me? I need to figure that out before I fry a $1000 cpu. lol.


I think it's total bs got shelled when I said that on Xtreme systems some guy claims it's true but could never show me any evidence of it. He just called me names and tried to overwhelm me with Vid information. Also somethings up with these T junction snesors now my chips read very similar temps, One core was at one time 6 to 8 degrees higher than the others but all the sudden during prime it's now within one degree of all the rest of the cores. Maybe it's the MX 2 setting up but I don't think so. At idle the are all within 2 degrees.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 11, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I think it's total bs got shelled when I said that on Xtreme systems some guy claims it's true but could never show me any evidence of it. He just called me names and tried to overwhelm me with Vid information.



Good, because I plan to run 1.5V for 24/7 use.


----------



## freaksavior (Mar 11, 2008)

anybody?


----------

