e8400's

[Tempered81]

so i see that the 45nm e8400's cache is 6mb "shared"

were the previous intel conroe 65nm core2duos caches "shared" as well?

edit: another question:

Is this the end of the line for the Core2duo product series? is there going to be like 35nm e9xxx series chips? Or does the product line go straight to Nahalem and its brand of chip designs?

If the 8xxx series of core2duos is the end, and there are no more revisions, then this is probably a smart chip to buy - the 8400. You could theoretically do 4.5ghz with its multiplier.

One more question, will this work with a p965 chipset? My gigabyte in sig.

 

[sutahz]

Yes, Conroe's 4M is shared.
Intel will keep the Core2 name w/ the 45nm chips. P4 was .13 to .09 right?
Ya know, before you ask us "will my mobo handle this new 45nm chip" you should go to gigabytes's site and confirm this for yourself... we are not your footmen.
Do tell, why does Vista suck? I mean in day to day use, how does it "bog you down"? Nay sayers.......

 

[Spook]

Yes the other C2D chips shared cache as well, the 6xxx series shares 4Meg, and the 4xxx series shares 2Meg.

Yes this is the end of the C2D line most likely, this is the test bed for 45nm, and in the Q4, they are supposed to release the new line of Quad Core chips(New architecture), if it doesn't get delayed(which it looks like it will)

45nm setups will with using the p35, x38 and x48 chipsets... so, no it probably won't work in your 965 motherboard.

 

[PCTC2]

Yes, all of the Core2 series has "shared" L2 Cache. The L2 is shared among 2 cores on a die.

There may be a refresh to E8X70 series (1600MHz FSB), following the suit of the QX9770. Who knows? It's pretty much all speculation now. Otherwise, it'll just be Nehalem.

45nm Core2's will NOT work with that motherboard. Linky

EDIT: I replied too slowly...

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: PCTC2
45nm Core2's will NOT work with that motherboard. Linky

Thanks PCTC2 for the Linky, answered my MB question.

EDIT: I replied too slowly...

Don't know why, worked well for me.

 

[Tempered81]

hey, thanks for the response, everyone.

sutahz- sorry for asking you to be my footman.

sutahz- vista sucks for many reasons. lower fps in 3dgames compared to xp. dx10 garbage/hoax with crysis. drm implementations, tighter user control, slower performance, hardware compatibility, the flagship of microsoft's restriction of certain consumer freedoms like dvd backups, etc etc. Microsoft i think offers a "downgrade" option as they call it - for vista buyers/users who want to go back to xp. that should say enough.

i recently saw a xp/vista/osx market share statistic. at the release of vista, it slowly took over microsoft's percentage of market domination beating xp somewhere around 60% to 40%. but since its release the graphs have criss-crossed and xp is now back at the top 62 over vistas 38... something ridiculous - showing that users are actually reverting or "downgrading" going back to xp

so actually xp is gaining in popularity compared to vista. xp is like 8 years old? vista is like 1 year old. I think vista sucks.

 

[Tempered81]

pctc2- thanks for that link - it says the revision 3.3 (which is the motherboard i have) will be tested later because of possible compatablity! yay!

also, MSI's motherboards with the p965 chipsets are compatable with 45nm yorkfields!

Yay again!

 

[Zenoth]

Come to think of it I'm wondering what could be the Cache distribution for the Q9300 ? It has four Cores but only 6MB of L2 Cache. If there's 2MB per Core then it means that one of them either doesn't have Cache at all or is just disabled. It most likely will be disabled.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
sutahz- vista sucks for many reasons. lower fps in 3dgames compared to xp. dx10 garbage/hoax with crysis. drm implementations, tighter user control, slower performance, hardware compatibility, the flagship of microsoft's restriction of certain consumer freedoms like dvd backups, etc etc. Microsoft i think offers a "downgrade" option as they call it - for vista buyers/users who want to go back to xp. that should say enough.

i recently saw a xp/vista/osx market share statistic. at the release of vista, it slowly took over microsoft's percentage of market domination beating xp somewhere around 60% to 40%. but since its release the graphs have criss-crossed and xp is now back at the top 62 over vistas 38... something ridiculous - showing that users are actually reverting or "downgrading" going back to xp

so actually xp is gaining in popularity compared to vista. xp is like 8 years old? vista is like 1 year old. I think vista sucks.

Vista has virtually identical fps compared to XP now. I keep seeing people claim this left and right as a reason not to go to Vista...

http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...nce_update/default.asp

...but they're basing their reasoning off old launch drivers.

As for your other issues...mostly just personal preference or opinion, which I can respect, but do not share.

Zenoth: I'm pretty sure the quad Penryn's will have 12MB of cache.

 

[Zenoth]

@Avalon

All previews I've seen for the Q9300 shows that it only has 6MB of L2 Cache.

Anyone willing to give a link where it'd say that it has 12MB instead ?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Avalon
Zenoth: I'm pretty sure the quad Penryn's will have 12MB of cache.

Not the cheap ones. The cheap ones are going to have 6MB of L2 cache.

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Come to think of it I'm wondering what could be the Cache distribution for the Q9300 ? It has four Cores but only 6MB of L2 Cache. If there's 2MB per Core then it means that one of them either doesn't have Cache at all or is just disabled. It most likely will be disabled.

You must not understand how shared cache works. It works identically to the way your system RAM works, except that you can't upgrade it. You have a certain amount, and all processors that access it just share it, instead of each core having their own L2 cache, hence the reason it's called "shared" cache. And since all Intel quads so far are really two dual-cores on the same die, the Q9300's will have one 3MB L2 cache per dual-core, and 6MB total.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
i recently saw a xp/vista/osx market share statistic.

If you could find a link to that article, love to read more.

Thanks

 

[The-Noid]

a lot of p965 boards will get a bios update to support these new 45nm chips.

 

[Tempered81]

Off topic:

Originally posted by: 21stHermit

Originally posted by: jaredpace
i recently saw a xp/vista/osx market share statistic.

If you could find a link to that article, love to read more.

Thanks

I cannot find this article with the graph, however i did look. Here are two articles that provide the same statistics.

"Certainly sales of Vista aren't blowing away XP in stores. Chris Swenson, director of software industry analysis for the NPD Group, says that, from January through July of this year, XP sales accounted for a healthy 42.3 percent of online and brick-and-mortar retail OS sales. By contrast, from January through July of 2002, after XP's launch in October the year prior, Windows 98 accounted for just 23.1 percent of retail sales."
http://pcworld.about.com/od/lo...tance-Why-XP-Is-St.htm

Also, you can check the graph at the bottom of this page
http://radar.oreilly.com/archi...5/a_tale_of_two_o.html

From the first article, you see that sales were at 42 % of total OS sales, however 5 months after the release of Vista, sales of vista were at an 82% market share as per this article:
http://news.softpedia.com/news...Deathmatch-58965.shtml

these 3 links will show you how vista sales are decreasing and xp sales are gaining market share. This trend is however, is expected to change towards 2009 & more in 2010 as microsoft quits offering lisences for new purchases of XP as per this graph, "out with xp, in with vista":
http://blogs.business2.com/app...3/mac_v_vista_by_.html

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
"Certainly sales of Vista aren't blowing away XP in stores. Chris Swenson, director of software industry analysis for the NPD Group, says that, from January through July of this year, XP sales accounted for a healthy 42.3 percent of online and brick-and-mortar retail OS sales. By contrast, from January through July of 2002, after XP's launch in October the year prior, Windows 98 accounted for just 23.1 percent of retail sales."
http://pcworld.about.com/od/lo...tance-Why-XP-Is-St.htm

Good read. I'll do the others later, still a little whipped from shoveling snow.

Thanks

 

[GundamF91]

The "Core 2 Duo" and "Core 2 Quad" names aren't going away, The "CORE" is the new name for Intel, just like old "PENTIUM". Intel will be using the CORE name for quite some time to come, just with different modifier, ie. CORE Extreme, CORE III or whatever they think that'll help with branding.

What going away are the 65nm Core processors, as now Intel is moving to 45nm processors. The current Intel design all have shared L2 cache, 65nm were sharing 1mb @ E2xxx, 2mb @ E4xxx, 4mb @ E6xxx, and 8mb @ Q6xxx. Now Intel's going over to 6mb shared L2, so now you'll see E8xxx with 6mb, and Q8/9 sharing 12mb.

As for Windows Vista, the only reason that it's overtaking XP is that all new PC are being shipped with Vista. So it's inevitable that it'll be more numerous as time go on. What you're not seeing is existing XP users going over to Vista.

 

[Tempered81]

hehe this topic is now 3 fold, sorry for inciting a vista/xp argument. How about that water powered car though!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...B3z3IE&feature=related

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
@Avalon

All previews I've seen for the Q9300 shows that it only has 6MB of L2 Cache.

Anyone willing to give a link where it'd say that it has 12MB instead ?

You're right, I did some digging and it seems the Q9300 will only have 6MB of L2 cache. However, that is shared cache for the whole package, so it looks like each die will have 3MB ala the tri-core upcoming E5xxx series.

The rest of the Q9xxx lineup will have 12MB shared L2 though.