Thursday, November 27th 2008
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1723816949774.png)
Intel to Phase Out its Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor Next Year
DigiTimes reports that Intel is to phase out its most beloved 65nm 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor in the first quarter of 2009.
Source:
DigiTimes
Intel is planning to start phasing out the 65nm Core 2 Quad Q6600 in the first quarter of 2009, prompting several PC and channel vendors to start planning to cut Q6600-product prices to clear their inventory before the end of this year, according to sources at PC vendors.
Intel will issue a product discontinuance notice for the Q6600 in the first quarter next year, and call end-of-lifecycle in the second quarter.
Acer has reduced pricing for its Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-based desktops to below NT$13,900 (US$418) for the IT Month consumer show in the Taiwan market, and other vendors are expected to follow suit.
51 Comments on Intel to Phase Out its Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor Next Year
Q9300 and Q9400 are FSB 1333. Both have 6MB L2 cache.
A Q6x00 would outperform a Q9x00 at the same clock. Intel had to bring out the Q9x50 to beat the Q6x00 series.
The Q9xxx is not compatible with older s775 boards that only do FSB 1066. If you have an older core2quad board then there is no upgrade path. And that's the point. Intel no longer provides LOYAL CUSTOMERS with an upgrade path. The only option is to get a whole new system, ie new chipset and new CPU. Whereas in the past, Intel made sure there WAS an upgrade path; they released better CPUs with higher clocks, SSE enhancements, HT, bigger L2 or L3 cache AT THE SAME FSB. And remember the whole pentium OVERDRIVE series? :respect:
Everyone here is saying "I'd better get me a Q6600 while they are still around and going cheap". That just goes to show that the show aint over for 1066 Q6xxx series. I bet there are a lot of people who would get a Q6850 3Ghz 1066 65W. Who would like one? Anyone wanna buy a Q6850 65W just $150? I bet they would sell like hotcakes.
I don't think there are many s775 boards that support the Q6000 series, but not the Q9000 series. And if they are that old, then chances are the customer has gotten their upgrades out of it. Even then, if you pick the right motherboard, that isn't really an issue. My P5B, which is well over 2 years old, started with a Celeron D in it, and still supports the Q9000 series. How long do you expect intel to continue to provide upgrade paths? Should they still keep pumping out Socket 478 P4's just so people with ancient boards can still have an upgrade path?
Be real, eventually, they are just going to have to move on. The few people that have ancient hardware are going to have to be left behind, Intel can't be blaimed for this. They chose to have the old hardware, and they chose to buy cheap when they bought it.
The few boards I know of that support the Q6600 but not the Q9000 series, support 1333FSB just fine, they just don't support the 45nm quads. These are nVidia's 600 series boards, which Intel can hardly be to blaim for nVidia's poor chipsets not supporting 45nm quads(even though they support 45nm duals just fine). What board are you talking about anyway, that is 1066FSB only, but supports quad core processors?
The price/performance is very good, infact too good for Intel to continue selling it when they want people to splash out on the brand new i7 platform.
And a Q6600 even at 2.4 will stomp a E8600 at 3.33 in a application that uses a quad core.
Some of those Q6600's were purely euphoric!
Eh? A Q9300 does not outperform a Q6600 clock for clock. Look at your own link. They show the Q9300 being about 4-5% faster on average than the Q6600, across a set of benchmarks. But guess what 2.5Ghz (Q9300) is 4% faster than 2.4Ghz (Q6600). Yes, there are a few that are 10%, clock for clock 6% faster. But those are wins due to higher FSB, improved cache latency, and SSE4.1.
So, WOW. Sometimes you can get up to 6% improvement, but sometimes it is negative, and on average the same, clock for clock.
So, a Q6850 at 65W would be a lovely CPU. QED.
And I have yet to see a negative performance wise from going from a Q6600 to a Q9300. Yes, it would be, but it isn't possible. The closest you are going to get is the Q9650 at 95w, in fact that would be the 45nm Q6850 exactly.
oh and as for this discussion... are 771 Xeons drop in compatible with 775 boards?
seems i can get the "Intel Xeon X3350 Quad Core Server Processor, LGA775 Pkg, 2.66GHz, 12MB L2 Cache Total, 1333MHz FSB, 45nm" in Aus for less than a Q9550
2./ Check your link. There are plenty of examples where performance is <4% better, BUT, on a 4% clock increase. Clock for clock it is slower.
3./ If a Q9650 is at 95w, then a Q6850 would be less than 95W. Why? Because the high clock FSB means more power communicating with the chipset. By reducing FSB but increasing the multiplier, you actually save power. It might not be a lot, but it is some. Also check out the *NEW* Intel quads. They are quoted at 65W. That's why we are taking about 65W. It's doable on todays fab. Not theory. Practice.
ANYWAY BACK TO THE POINT
I have a mainboard that cannot get to 1333 or 1600 FSB. But I would spend big dollar on a CPU upgrade, rather than have to buy a whole new chipset, platform, reinstall and all that BS. But there isnt a high multiplier FSB 800 or 1066 CPU except of the QX6700, (unlocked). Intel wont drop the prices on the unlocked extreme editions, so how about a locked quad with a higher multipler than Q6600 or Q6700. That would be a nice upgrade for many peeps, esp. if it had the 65W envelope.
2.) But overall it is faster. So clock for clock, it is faster. We don't judge performance on a single number, we judge it on overall performance.
3.) The Q6850 would be the same FSB as the Q9650, they would both run at 1333. For the 6000 series of processors, a 50 at the end indicates a 1333 FSB. Besides that, FSB has not affect on the thermal envolope of the processor, if you want and example of that look at the E6700 and E6750. Both are 65w, same cache size, both 65nm, both are 2.66GHz. One is 1333 and the other is 1066.
What Intel quad are you looking at that are quoted at 65w? None are quoted at that as far as I know. Intel doesn't have a desktop quad-core processor rated below 95w.
news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Planning-35W-and-65W-Quad-Core-Processors-98310.shtml
So, all we want is a 1066 version of these, ie, high multiplier, and many peeps would have an upgrade path for their "older" but not "old" systems.
We seem to be going in circles. This is my original comment forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1080331&postcount=19
Have a nice day! :toast:
And as for you original state, as I already said, Intel did move the Q6600 to 45nm, they called it the Q9300. The specs were not identical, but performance was improved, and overclocking was better also. Of course, if you want the true Q6600 of the 45nm world, look no further than the Q9650. And Intel has provided plenty of upgrade paths, the Q9000/8000 processor provide several upgrade paths.
Or intel:
www.intel.com/Products/Desktop/Motherboards/DQ45EK/DQ45EK-overview.htm