Intel Announces Three LGA 775 Processors, Cuts Prices of Some Chips

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

3?

 

[Frick]

To my understanding this is a "Pentium E6600" whereas the previous one was "Core 2 Duo E6600."

Doh! Silly me.

 

[Disparia]

Though I though the Q9500 already existed, but was called the Q9505...

Identical except that the Q9500 won't support VT-x, according to a post over at Toms.

Hasn't been posted at the Ark yet to verify. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=28398

 

[imperialreign]

How much difference is there really between 6M and 12M cache? Are C2Q's so cache dependent in performance?

Really depends on the applications involved. I wouldn't say they're cache dependant, but the more, the better.

Probably just rebranding stuff trying to make a quick buck on the people that dont know any better and OEMs.

Meh - nothing Intel haven't done countless times over in the past. Remember when the Pentium 4 "Extreme Editions" were just multiplier-unlocked versions, and sold at double the price? The target audience was very slim.

In all honesty, there's usually very little difference from one of Intel's series to the next - i.e. there's little difference between a Q9550 and a Q9650 . . . but there's nearly a $100+ difference in price.

 

[LagunaX]

Pentium e6600 - sounds like 11.5 x 266.
I might get one and overclock it fore nostalgia's sake as I first started overclocking with Intel Core 2 Duo e6600's...

 

[newtekie1]

Identical except that the Q9500 won't support VT-x, according to a post over at Toms.

Hasn't been posted at the Ark yet to verify. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=28398

I don't know, I thought Intel got out of disabling VT-x since XP Mode requires it, they realized that was a big mistake. This is why they've re-released new versions of the same processor with VT-x enabled.

Though they might disable some other instruction set.

Meh - nothing Intel haven't done countless times over in the past. Remember when the Pentium 4 "Extreme Editions" were just multiplier-unlocked versions, and sold at double the price? The target audience was very slim.

In all honesty, there's usually very little difference from one of Intel's series to the next - i.e. there's little difference between a Q9550 and a Q9650 . . . but there's nearly a $100+ difference in price.

Intel? Try AMD. Remember the FX series? Same processors, unlocked multipliers, $1000 more. At least the P4 Extemes used a higher FSB speed also, giving more benefit than just an unlocked multiplier...

In all honesty, there is usually very little difference from one of AMD's series to the next - i.e. there's little difference between a X2 4400+ and an X2 4800+ . . . but there was nearly a $150 difference in price when they were still the best of their time.

The only reason there isn't a $100+ gap between the 955 and 965 right now is because AMD can't price the 965 that high, it won't be competitive. But you better believe that AMD would price it through the roof if there was no competition from Intel.

 

[jpierce55]

What I would have preferred is some ultra low powered cpu's, 45w x2's and 65w quads. They have some low power quads, but cost an arm and a leg.

 

[newtekie1]

It isn't that hard to get the regular quads down to the 65w area simply by lowering the voltage below default. That is all the low powered chips really are, they have a lower VID, so their default voltage is lower. There might be some slight binning to get chips that are better at the lower voltage, but essentially the normal chips can handle it also.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

my q6600 is @ .89 V right now sittin cool