Intel to launch three 65W Quad cores

[JPB]

Intel to launch three 65W Quad cores

Intel plans to introduce three new low power Quad cores and they will all fit under 65W boot which is much better than any quad core today.


All three 65W quad core CPUs are Yorkfield, Core 2 Quad 45nm based and the fastest one Core 2 Quad Q9550s will run at 2.83GHz and it supports FSB 1333 and 12MB of memory.

The second in line is Q9400s clocked at 2.66GHz with FSB 1333 and 6MB cache support again 65W and 45nm Yorkfield based.

The slowest one is Q9200s clocked at 2.33Hz with FSB 1333 and 4MB cache and they should all be available as early as January. The planet loving people will now have a decent quad core that will save the earth and overclockers can hope that this lower TDP part should probably overclock better.

Better overclocking maybe ?

 

[MarcVenice]

I read this quite some time ago. It could actually be true. Don't forget Intel uses an avg for their TDP, unlike AMD, who use the max number for their TDP.

 

[Accord99]

It's just Intel finally making official what people have known about the 9000 series quad-cores. Their TDPs are significantly overrated to begin with:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3184&p=2

 

[taltamir]

i got an AMD lower power consumption.. going from 65TDP to 45TDP lowered my idle system power (it is almost always idle because it is a file server that is on 24/7) by 2 watts! instead of 20 watts; disappointing. But i did get 2.3ghz instead of 2ghz cpu. and after selling the old CPU on ebay I was only short 5$ on the deal.

Anyways, power savings has nothing to do with planet loving, you want to help the environemtn? instead of creating LANDFILL of toxic waste to reduce your energy emissions by 10%, you should just switch to 100% renewable energy company. costs 1.3 cents more per KWH here in texas.
I always do an exact calculation of how money much I save on power efficient items. Usually they pay for themselves and then some, but sometimes they are a waste of money. If the difference in wattage is significant then it could be well worth it to buy it instead due to electricity cost (depending on where you live).

 

[Kraeoss]

well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I read this quite some time ago. It could actually be true. Don't forget Intel uses an avg for their TDP, unlike AMD, who use the max number for their TDP.

These are true, IIRC, the ES's are "out in the wild" already.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Q9550s $369

Q9400s $320

Q8200s $245

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

They will never be lower than many of the current offerings. Most of the decent Dual cores are still over $150, why would they price ANY quad under that?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

You want to save the planet? We'll, it's going to cost you. We live in a world where it costs much much more to do something good than it does to do something carefree. Sorry for the OT (kind of), but remember the GM EV-1?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

You want to save the planet? We'll, it's going to cost you. We live in a world where it costs much much more to do something good than it does to do something carefree. Sorry for the OT (kind of), but remember the GM EV-1?

Unfortunately we don't know the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process from cradle to consumer for these chips or their higher TDP brethren. We'd need to know that before we can make any arguments regarding the carbon footprint tradeoffs that remain for the product's timeline capturing consumer purchase to end of life. Then we could discuss whether it saves the planet.

If the process of producing, distributing, and selling one of these lower TDP chips (including any additional test time needed for their characterization, store space used for their display next to existing higher TDP variants, etc) is higher than their higher TDP brethren then cost or no cost they still aren't going to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the SKU.

 

[Griswold]

As long as chips are produced and then flown around the world to get their package and then flown back to wherever they're being sold, you wont have to think even a split second about doing the right thing (other than not buying a computer or any other goods that is not produced less than 500km from your house) and saving the planet by buying more expensive but on paper more energy efficient processors. To me, the good news here is this: less heat = less noise. I hate noise.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

You want to save the planet? We'll, it's going to cost you. We live in a world where it costs much much more to do something good than it does to do something carefree. Sorry for the OT (kind of), but remember the GM EV-1?

Conservation is not a solution. New energy sources are. Like breeder reactors. I'd rather put my money towards something that will solve the problem, not just delay it. If there's a problem in the first place...2007 and 2008 have shown record temperature lows across the world.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

You want to save the planet? We'll, it's going to cost you. We live in a world where it costs much much more to do something good than it does to do something carefree. Sorry for the OT (kind of), but remember the GM EV-1?

Conservation is not a solution. New energy sources are. Like breeder reactors. I'd rather put my money towards something that will solve the problem, not just delay it. If there's a problem in the first place...2007 and 2008 have shown record temperature lows across the world.

That's why its sexy to call it Climate Change and not Global Warming nowadays. Thankfully with adopting such a generically defensible label as climate change (which it does, in some places every 15 minutes :laugh we are guaranteed to be fighting the battle for decades if not centuries to come.

 

[formulav8]

IIRC AMD has had 65 Watt cpu's for quite awhile now. Not sure why they are saying Intel 65 Watt is much lower than any quadcore today? Maybe I am missing something.


Jason

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: formulav8
IIRC AMD has had 65 Watt cpu's for quite awhile now. Not sure why they are saying Intel 65 Watt is much lower than any quadcore today? Maybe I am missing something.


Jason

Amd's 65w is dual core not quad

 

[RaptureMe]

It would be nice to see some 65w quads I for one would buy up a whole bunch for folding/file server ect. if the price is right.
Although there is a phenom 2.0ghz cpu at 65w but I am kinda holding out for these new Lower powered intel quads.
Only time will tell..

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: formulav8
IIRC AMD has had 65 Watt cpu's for quite awhile now. Not sure why they are saying Intel 65 Watt is much lower than any quadcore today? Maybe I am missing something.


Jason

Amd's 65w is dual core not quad

AMD has the 9150e and 9350e quad core processors, 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz, with 65W TDP.

Then they have the 4x50e 45W dual core processors.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: taltamir
i got an AMD lower power consumption.. going from 65TDP to 45TDP lowered my idle system power (it is almost always idle because it is a file server that is on 24/7) by 2 watts! instead of 20 watts; disappointing. But i did get 2.3ghz instead of 2ghz cpu. and after selling the old CPU on ebay I was only short 5$ on the deal.

That's because TDP is the max draw, and both chips will downclock when idle anyway to save power, so the 45w TDP chips minimum (idle) voltage is probably not much lower than the 65W chip (if at all), but the max voltage when running at stock speed will be lower, meaning less power used under load.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's because TDP is the max draw

my understanding of the situation is that AMD's TDP rating is not a max draw but an average draw.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: edplayer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's because TDP is the max draw

my understanding of the situation is that AMD's TDP rating is not a max draw but an average draw.

Isn't that ACP?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Kraeoss
well i hope they are sub $140... if they are then i may cnsider getting one

Me too.

But they are higher priced than even the original q9x's. The new q9550 is $360 IIRC.

You want to save the planet? We'll, it's going to cost you. We live in a world where it costs much much more to do something good than it does to do something carefree. Sorry for the OT (kind of), but remember the GM EV-1?

Conservation is not a solution. New energy sources are. Like breeder reactors. I'd rather put my money towards something that will solve the problem, not just delay it. If there's a problem in the first place...2007 and 2008 have shown record temperature lows across the world.

The 65W design is probably intended for more uses than to just conserve energy. These quads could probably be put into power-notebooks and still maintain decent battery life.

For someone who is looking for a major upgrade, and needs a quad core, then these should be considered first before the higher-TDP brethren. Who knows how long before alternative energy sources will become available, so I don't see any harm in "putting my money towards" Intel and these low-power quad cores to [hopefully] lessen my carbon footprint in the mean time.