# Intel Desktop CPU Price Cut On July 22



## malware (May 15, 2007)

Intel plans to slash all Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad CPU prices again just 3 months after the previous drop on April 22. With a remarkable price cut of 50%, AMD is facing another harsh battle with Intel.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Conti027 (May 15, 2007)

looking to get me a E6850


----------



## ex_reven (May 15, 2007)

3ghz stock dual core  

The future is looooooookin good


----------



## laszlo (May 15, 2007)

poor AMD soon they don't have what to cut;since they buy ati i'll see only delays in new products and intel & nvidia is rising...
who has read the AMD report can see the 1st signs of bankruptcy and if happens the prices will rise


----------



## OrbitzXT (May 15, 2007)

I don't know how business works, but for the consumer this is a good thing right now...regardless if it would ever happen or not, if AMD ever did actually go bankrupt and Intel was the sole chip maker, wouldn't that eventually be a bad thing for consumers with Intel's high prices?


----------



## Darksaber (May 15, 2007)

Well that will mean Quad core and 8800GTX SLI for me at the end of summer 

cheers
DS


----------



## ex_reven (May 15, 2007)

Darksaber said:


> Well that will mean Quad core and 8800GTX SLI for me at the end of summer
> 
> cheers
> DS



What will you use Quad Core for? Wouldnt the dual core be a better alternative for gaming and general use?


----------



## mullered07 (May 15, 2007)

ex_reven said:


> What will you use Quad Core for? Wouldnt the dual core be a better alternative for gaming and general use?



a bigger e-penis is always a must  im thinking a e6850 or q6600 by the end of the year


----------



## mandelore (May 15, 2007)

lol the fsb on some of those chips almost spell 1337


----------



## Bonerheimer_c (May 15, 2007)

Im gonna say $266 quad FTW!


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 15, 2007)

Bonerheimer_c said:


> Im gonna say $266 quad FTW!



Same, if AMD does not get their act together, I'm going to the Dark Side


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 15, 2007)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Same, if AMD does not get their act together, I'm going to the Dark Side



Do not underestimate the power of the dark side.  

In all seriousness though, This type of news I have been waiting for in the past couple months. 

2 C2D price-cuts .....


As far as AMD bankruptcy goes, I doubt that will ever happen with the FASN8 stepping coming out. As i always say "Only time will tell".


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 15, 2007)

Can't believe the Q6600 will be so damn cheap. Hopefully the high-end motherboards won't be too bad either.


----------



## lordlatte (May 15, 2007)

This raises the question of whether I want a q6600 or a e6850. I'd love quad-core, but then again, I'd rather have the real world use of the extra 600mhz. Also I should probably consider, the 1333 is like paying intel to oc the chips for us, won't that limit the oc'ing ability of the 6850? Does anyone know how much people are getting out of their q6600s?


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 15, 2007)

Come on. Clock speed doesn't mean anything. Four cores is going to outperform two any day.


----------



## mdm-adph (May 15, 2007)

OrbitzXT said:


> I don't know how business works, but for the consumer this is a good thing right now...regardless if it would ever happen or not, if AMD ever did actually go bankrupt and Intel was the sole chip maker, wouldn't that eventually be a bad thing for consumers with Intel's high prices?



No -- you _do_ understand how business works.  Intel is only releasing fast chips at cheap prices right now because they're competing with AMD.  

If AMD goes out of business, you better believe that Intel will severely cut R&D on new products -- why bother creating faster stuff if your customers can't go anywhere else?


----------



## GJSNeptune (May 15, 2007)

Because if AMD tanks, Google will buy them and come out with Google OS, powered by AMD Googleon processors.


----------



## bruins004 (May 15, 2007)

Prices for these are looking good.
But the thing I am really interested in is what the future will bring.

I mean look at it now.
Quad cores are becoming affordable and so are blazing fast CPUs.
Just imagine how fast the next gen. CPUs are going to be.


----------



## freaksavior (May 15, 2007)

i like the looks of the prices......maybe by the end of summer i can get a e6550 or e 6750


----------



## evil bill (May 15, 2007)

mandelore said:


> lol the fsb on some of those chips almost spell 1337



hehe I bet so many people will alter their bus speed to 334.25 Mhz so that it says just that


----------



## HaZe303 (May 15, 2007)

GREAT NEWS! I will wait 2months, and buy me a Q6700.  Was thinking of a Q6600 first, but now i will get the q6700 for the same price!


----------



## petepete (May 15, 2007)

This is good and very bad news. At this time this is a great reason for us to buy these super cheap Intel quad cores, but at a big price. AMD will not be able to compete with such low prices that their share in the market will decrease eventually bumping the intel prices to the thousand mark.

My next comp will be the 2 cpu mobos and possibly quad core etc.. But we better hope that Nvidia and Intel don't take more of the stock market. No competition =  Worse prices for the consumer. Q4 2007 to Q1 2008 is going to be a major turning point in prices so I wouldn't be too happy on the prices now


----------



## Greek (May 15, 2007)

they couldnt of found a better time to cut the prices, 4 days b4 my b-day, damn q6600 here i come


----------



## Eric_Cartman (May 15, 2007)

every time i decide on a processor to get intel does something like this and i change my mind

i was going to get an e4300, but now i think i will wait and either get an e4400 or an e4500, assuming the e2x00 series isn't out and one of those doesn't call my name


----------



## theonetruewill (May 15, 2007)

GJSNeptune said:


> Because if AMD tanks, Google will buy them and come out with Google OS, powered by AMD Googleon processors.



 
Legendary - but it would probably be true if they did indeed go bankrupt.


----------



## Conti027 (May 15, 2007)

lordlatte said:


> This raises the question of whether I want a q6600 or a e6850. I'd love quad-core, but then again, I'd rather have the real world use of the extra 600mhz. Also I should probably consider, the 1333 is like paying intel to oc the chips for us, won't that limit the oc'ing ability of the 6850? Does anyone know how much people are getting out of their q6600s?



well if you like gaming alot then you want the E6850 cause games dont use quad-core (well some do like crysis will but its overkill) some games still dont even use dual-core so why get quad? and the games that use dual would only be using 2 of the 4 and i would want 2 faster cores and not 4 when only 2 slower ones are being used. by the time we start using quad (if it even gets as big as dual core did) a Q6600 would be nothing my the time you would even come close to needing one


----------



## paul06660 (May 15, 2007)

I think that its finally time to get the Q6600 for me.
I still use a 3.0E Prescott socket 478, so this is a huge upgrade.
I have to do a new system build with a 2900XT Raedeon.

I want a quad core so I can have the 8MB cache. $266. Thats about what I paid for my 3.0E prescott 3 years ago!!!!

My future specs

q6600

Mobo - TBD

4 gigs ddr2

Raedeon HD 2900XT Crossfire

Raid 0 of flash hard drives. (or I might just use my 74GB Raptors for now)

1 Gnome to live in the case and maintain the gigantic liquid cooling system I need for this thing.


----------



## Alcpone (May 15, 2007)

Gnome   I had my very own mouse in my case 1 time when my kind cat brought it into play with and it decided to take refuge in there, Im glad I found it before it got sucked into a 120mm fan and instantly diced into small pieces and firing insides into my lovely rig! 

I wonder if anyone in the oc'ing know will buy a E6850 over a E6550? 

A Quadcore will be just the right price @ xmas for me to justify the outlay, hopefully more games will use all 4 cores


----------



## Grings (May 15, 2007)

Eric_Cartman said:


> every time i decide on a processor to get intel does something like this and i change my mind
> 
> i was going to get an e4300, but now i think i will wait and either get an e4400 or an e4500, assuming the e2x00 series isn't out and one of those doesn't call my name



it is out now


----------



## Darkrealms (May 15, 2007)

Looks like I'll be using intel next time around : (
Now I'm really worried about competition, this could really suck in a year or two.


GJSNeptune said:


> Because if AMD tanks, Google will buy them and come out with Google OS, powered by AMD Googleon processors.


Cheers!  I could go for that, but unfortunately I don't know that they would keep ATI, didn't google buy some Euro graphics company not too long ago??


----------



## HaZe303 (May 15, 2007)

Conti027 said:


> well if you like gaming alot then you want the E6850 cause games dont use quad-core (well some do like crysis will but its overkill) some games still dont even use dual-core so why get quad? and the games that use dual would only be using 2 of the 4 and i would want 2 faster cores and not 4 when only 2 slower ones are being used. by the time we start using quad (if it even gets as big as dual core did) a Q6600 would be nothing my the time you would even come close to needing one



I think you have misunderstood the meaning of multithreaded games, or games with dual core support. If a game has multicore support, it doesnt use only 2 cores. It uses all cores. So for an example Crysis, or even STalker that are multi core games, will use all cores not only 2. So sure i agree that most games arent multithreaded. But when they finally will be, and more of games will eventually be multithreaded(crysis, alan wake, stalker with patch, and others), then youre quadcore cpu will crush youre dualcore any day. But as you said, as long as no one is pressuring game developers to utilize fully todays hardware and code the games with multithreading enabled, we will never see the performance increases. But I personally know several games that will use that extra power, that is why I´ll rather buy the Q6700 cpu with "only" 2.66ghz quadcore, than 3.0ghz dual core E6850. I will have more use of the 2 extra cores than the 330mhz.


----------



## ex_reven (May 16, 2007)

All these weird processor designations get confusing
e4300, e6800, q6800, e6850...
Couldnt they organise it a little less retardedly 

I mean, sure its a numerical succession of numbers...but it sounds lame.


----------



## HellasVagabond (May 16, 2007)

In theory the Q6600 is the best choice since IF it overclocks as well as the normal 6600 then people should be able to reach 3500mhz without a problem...And 4CPUs with 3500mhz each is....WOW!

Now as for the E6850 since its predecessor could reach 4000mhz so should this one too but even so 2CPUS at 4000mhz VS 4CPUS at 3500mhz loose in every case.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2007)

HaZe303 said:


> I think you have misunderstood the meaning of multithreaded games, or games with dual core support. If a game has multicore support, it doesnt use only 2 cores. It uses all cores. So for an example Crysis, or even STalker that are multi core games, will use all cores not only 2. So sure i agree that most games arent multithreaded. But when they finally will be, and more of games will eventually be multithreaded(crysis, alan wake, stalker with patch, and others), then youre quadcore cpu will crush youre dualcore any day. But as you said, as long as no one is pressuring game developers to utilize fully todays hardware and code the games with multithreading enabled, we will never see the performance increases. But I personally know several games that will use that extra power, that is why I´ll rather buy the Q6700 cpu with "only" 2.66ghz quadcore, than 3.0ghz dual core E6850. I will have more use of the 2 extra cores than the 330mhz.


That's not entirely true. Some multi threaded apps, games included, are only optimized up to a certain number of cores. If a game is optimized for dual core, it will only make use of 2 cores. Quake4 is a good example of this. Look into many of the reviews pitting the 2.66 Quad against the 2.93 Dual. In a good bit of multi-threaded apps, the dual pulls ahead, because the programs only made use of 2 of the 4 cores in the quad. 

That being said, I would still get the quad, personally. Even if some apps and games don't benefit from it, heavy multi-tasking does.


----------



## ex_reven (May 16, 2007)

Once threading is available for 4 cores, its going to be an incredibly interesting point in terms of CPU performance 

Im looking forward to a quad core...when they meet their potential.


----------



## Greek (May 16, 2007)

HellasVagabond said:


> In theory the Q6600 is the best choice since IF it overclocks as well as the normal 6600 then people should be able to reach 3500mhz without a problem...And 4CPUs with 3500mhz each is....WOW!
> 
> Now as for the E6850 since its predecessor could reach 4000mhz so should this one too but even so 2CPUS at 4000mhz VS 4CPUS at 3500mhz loose in every case.



it's not 4 cpus it's 4 cores in ONE CPU.

just thought i'd clear this up for people who really think that they have 4 cpus.


----------



## Oo_Skyline_oO (May 16, 2007)

*Amd*

K, well in the past I've had nothing but severe stability problems with amd so I pretty much don't like amd......BUT I bet if they brought back HT on their line of cpu's, they could compete with intel, just imagine, their 2 cpu's in one mobo, each having 4 cores, each core in "HT" mode being able to handle 2 threads at a time, that equals 16 threads at one time!! then programs that take advantage of multiple cores would show amd as the performance king.


----------



## Grings (May 16, 2007)

Oo_Skyline_oO said:


> K, well in the past I've had nothing but severe stability problems with amd so I pretty much don't like amd......BUT I bet if they brought back HT on their line of cpu's, they could compete with intel, just imagine, their 2 cpu's in one mobo, each having 4 cores, each core in "HT" mode being able to handle 2 threads at a time, that equals 16 threads at one time!! then programs that take advantage of multiple cores would show amd as the performance king.



thats hyperthreading dude, an intel technology, if youve seen ht on ati that stands for hypertransport, which is simply a fsb/system bus technology


----------



## HellasVagabond (May 16, 2007)

Dont get stuck in words...CPU , CORES isnt that of a mistake


----------



## Zubasa (May 17, 2007)

Grings said:


> thats hyperthreading dude, an intel technology, if youve seen ht on ati that stands for hypertransport, which is simply a fsb/system bus technology


HT = HyperTransport
HTT = Hyper Threading Technology


----------



## Oo_Skyline_oO (May 17, 2007)

Well then amd needs to adapt that technology intel had......OR they could also do the reverse HT and have windows recognize one big 48ghz cpu. Wonder what that would to to performance figures.


----------



## trt740 (May 17, 2007)

I don't think people realize how close AMD is to going down look at it's stock. It appears Intel does it's like a shark moving in on a pool full of retarded kids. That will be horrible not to see the potential of AM2+, damn ATI puts out the first dud video card in years putting the nail in AMD's coffin. We may get a price drop now but in the future we are screwed.


----------



## Alcpone (May 17, 2007)

It aint all over until the fat lady sings, she aint even cleared her throat yet, I hope for all our sakes they dont go under!


----------



## ex_reven (May 17, 2007)

Maybe the fat lady is being throat fucked 
but i hope not, because ive never owned an nvidia product in my life and id like to keep it that way .


----------



## magibeg (May 17, 2007)

I'ld say intel is probably doing the whole kicking them when they're down thing. AMD was already suffering pretty bad from the current price wars. On the bright side theres great prices for me out there now .


----------



## Alcpone (May 17, 2007)

ex_reven said:


> Maybe the fat lady is being throat fucked
> but i hope not, because ive never owned an nvidia product in my life and id like to keep it that way .



Alright keep your sexual fantasies to yourself lol

Who's to say AMD will keep a hold of ATi? I dont think they will if times get to hard and they need the capital, as for not trying nvidia tut tut, shame on you FANBOY lol jk


----------



## evil bill (May 17, 2007)

AMD have bad timing and themselves to blame for their current problems. 

They spent years poking Intel with a stick, and Intel finally turned round and slapped them hard with Conroe. At the exact same time, they bought ATi and have been focusing on internal restructuring rather than getting product to market.

I hope they can bounce back though - we need competition.


----------



## WarEagleAU (May 21, 2007)

AMD will bounce back. I dont see them going bankrupt. A company doesnt buy/merge with another one simply to eat crow. It may take a bit, moreso than you antsy impatient punks here can stand, but when things are settled, AMD will be hoopin it up no problem and Intel will be on the heels (just a prediction here, in no way am I saying this SHOULD happen  )


----------



## rampage (Jun 1, 2007)

even tho i have gone to the dark side i sure hope amd dosnt go under, as it was said earlier it will give intel a monopoly and that is never a good thing in the business world for the consumers


----------



## erocker (Jun 1, 2007)

Waiting for my Phenom.


----------

