Intel's Q8200 Quad Core

[wwswimming]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115055

when i first saw this, i wondered if it might be for lap-tops, because of the smaller cache and the model number. i think i've seen some laptops with T8*** type model numbers.

but, 95 watts is not real laptop friendly.

the T8100, core2duo, 35 watts, that is laptop friendly.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819111003

i don't understand what Intel plans for this product. the Q6600 is cheaper & faster and has the same 95 watt spec.

i was wondering if the Q8200 MIGHT have power-saving features that make it good for a quad core laptop, that don't make it into the abbreviated Newegg spec.

http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SLB5M

the Intel page. it's got the 1333 memory bus, it's 45 nM.

what is this beast for ?

 

[Idontcare]

95W TDP is carp for the clockspeed and L2$ size when considered with respect to the 3GHz Q9650 with it's 12MB L2$ and 95W TDP.

(The TDP of the Q9650 (95W) is 35W lower than the TDP of the QX9650 (130W)!)

 

[Lonyo]

How much do TDP's represent real numbers though?
I mean Intel and AMD both seem to have tiers for TDP, such as 65/95/130 for Intel and 67/95/125/140 for AMD.
I would assume that a lower clocked processor in the same TDP bracket as a higher clocked one would still probably use less power (power is proportional to frequency x voltage^2 iirc), so assuming similar voltages, power will still go down, but maybe not neough that they bin them for a lower TDP bracket.

So the Q8200's probably will use less power on average than the Q9650, but not enough to make it a 65w CPU.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

i don't understand what Intel plans for this product. the Q6600 is cheaper & faster and has the same 95 watt spec.

They probably plan to discontinue the Q6600 since its more expensive for them to make than the q8200 assuming yields on their 45nm and 65nm processes are similar

 

[clarkey01]

I wonder how fast this thing can hit

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

So.. Intel's low-end quads do NOT have a low FSB/high multi I see. Very disappointed, not sure why Intel is even introducing this model.

I guess it's based on two E5200 die (2MB L2 ea, 45nm) sandwiched together? If so, does that mean that the Q8200 lacks SSE4.1 as well?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

So.. Intel's low-end quads do NOT have a low FSB/high multi I see. Very disappointed, not sure why Intel is even introducing this model.

I guess it's based on two E5200 die (2MB L2 ea, 45nm) sandwiched together? If so, does that mean that the Q8200 lacks SSE4.1 as well?

See page 11 of the processor datasheet: http://download.intel.com/desi...or/datashts/318726.pdf

The processor supports all the existing Streaming SIMD Extensions 2 (SSE2),
Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSE3), Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extension 3
(SSSE3), and the Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.1 (SSE4.1). The processor supports
several Advanced Technologies: Execute Disable Bit, Intel® 64 architecture (Intel® 64),
and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology. In addition, the Intel® Core?2 Extreme
processor QX9000 series and Intel® Core?2 Quad processor Q9000 series support
Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT). Further, the Intel® Core?2 Quad
processor Q9000 series supports Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT).

I read this to say that Q8200 does indeed support SSE4.1 but does not support Virtualization.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

Yah, wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot. Get those Q6600s while you can!

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
what is this beast for ?

Perhaps the OEMs wanted a more low-end quad-core but built on 45nm for the reduced cooling requirements? That seems to be the only reasonable explanation.

Originally posted by: Lonyo
So the Q8200's probably will use less power on average than the Q9650, but not enough to make it a 65w CPU.

The QX9650 has been measured to use around 70W with quad Prime95:

http://www.behardware.com/arti...ore-2-q9300-e7200.html

The mainstream 45nm quads also have power consumptions well below their rated TDP. I wouldn't be suprised if the actual power consumption of the Q8200 turns out to be less than 45W.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I read this to say that Q8200 does indeed support SSE4.1 but does not support Virtualization.

Refresh my memory. Does 65nm C2D include VT too, or is there an improved VT in the 45nm chips?

I can't see anyone buying the Q8200 over the Q6600, really.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
95W TDP is carp for the clockspeed and L2$ size when considered with respect to the 3GHz Q9650 with it's 12MB L2$ and 95W TDP.

(The TDP of the Q9650 (95W) is 35W lower than the TDP of the QX9650 (130W)!)

Agreed. If this was around 65 TDP, then maybe we would be excited. Although it still may not be the best OC'er with a 7x multi, a cheap quad for a HTPC would be nice (with low power usage).

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: Idontcare
95W TDP is carp for the clockspeed and L2$ size when considered with respect to the 3GHz Q9650 with it's 12MB L2$ and 95W TDP.

(The TDP of the Q9650 (95W) is 35W lower than the TDP of the QX9650 (130W)!)

Although it still may not be the best OC'er with a 7x multi, a cheap quad for a HTPC would be nice (with low power usage).

There is no point of using a quad in a HTPC , isn't it!?

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

Yah, wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot. Get those Q6600s while you can!

Exactly - if only they did a die shrink to 45nm

 

[wwswimming]

this thing has got to be for low-power systems, though for some reason
they are still spec'ing it at 95 watts.

i think that's a laptop processor that is LGA775 compatible. i bet within
2 months we'll be seeing them in laptops.

let me do a search.
http://www.google.com/search?h...e+laptop&start=10&sa=N

nothing interesting yet.

summary - a guess - this part is mis-spec'ed deliberately. it is
a low power consumption part. if true, that would explain the
higher pricing - it's more expensive than the Q6600, which is
a faster part. ( it's like buying a Phenom ! ) ( i will beg my
Opteron for forgiveness.)

why would Intel mis-spec the TDP of a part ? so they can sell
the existing stock of their older parts ? OK getting seriously
into FUDzilla land here. i will eat my broccoli and forget about it.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
this thing has got to be for low-power systems, though for some reason
they are still spec'ing it at 95 watts.

i think that's a laptop processor that is LGA775 compatible. i bet within
2 months we'll be seeing them in laptops.

let me do a search.
http://www.google.com/search?h...e+laptop&start=10&sa=N

nothing interesting yet.

summary - a guess - this part is mis-spec'ed deliberately. it is
a low power consumption part. if true, that would explain the
higher pricing - it's more expensive than the Q6600, which is
a faster part. ( it's like buying a Phenom ! ) ( i will beg my
Opteron for forgiveness.)

why would Intel mis-spec the TDP of a part ? so they can sell
the existing stock of their older parts ? OK getting seriously
into FUDzilla land here. i will eat my broccoli and forget about it.

Any viable conspiracy must have a financial "ends justify the means" to it. I don't see any financial benefit to Intel intentionally appropriating low-TDP parts as high-TDP parts...it raises the integration costs for everyone in the supply chain, needlessly, which reduces total units shipped and gross revenue booked.

If that were the goal then it could be accomplished with existing SKU's and no need to release a new SKU to same effect.

Traditionally TDP "budgets" during testing are used to enable a sizable chunk of "junk" silicon to get pushed out the door as saleable chips. Your X3's of the world, so to speak.

So Intel has a bunch of wolfdale's that really burn thru the Watts when clocked to 3GHz and they downclock them to a clockspeed where they still burn up the watts but not so badly that they give Phenom any competition. How do you get a 95W TDP chip at 2.4GHz?

Start with an otherwise unsellable chip that nets you 150W TDP at 3GHz and downclock it to 2.33GHz and lop-off 8MB of power burning L2$ and sell it for something >$0. Again I refer you to the playbook used by the X3 productization team.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
summary - a guess - this part is mis-spec'ed deliberately. it is
a low power consumption part.

Here's a review in French of the Q8200. With all 4 cores loaded, it uses roughly the same amount of power as a high-end Penryn and much lower than either Kentsfield or the tri-core or quad-core Phenoms.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/...600-et-q8200/page3.php

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: wwswimming
summary - a guess - this part is mis-spec'ed deliberately. it is
a low power consumption part.

Here's a review in French of the Q8200. With all 4 cores loaded, it uses roughly the same amount of power as a high-end Penryn and much lower than either Kentsfield or the tri-core or quad-core Phenoms.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/...600-et-q8200/page3.php

Google translated from French to English

 

[nyker96]

I'm not sure the Q8200s are the ones to get if you have OC in mind. And the prices are not cheap either. With that said I'm still wondering how that lowered cache will effect the final performance of this chip compare to its older bro running clock/clock. As for value I think Q6600 beats it hands down.

So brave person getting this and test it out for us? $224 currently at the egg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115055

 

[edplayer]

Or...

get it with the ECS motherboard at Fry's right now. $200 for both. Maybe you can get $25 or so for the board...

 

[harpoon84]

TDP is just a spec for OEMs to ensure adequate cooling for a given class of processors. It doesn't correlate to actual power consumption.

The QX9650 actually uses ~65W under load, yet is rated at 130W TDP (because its 'designed' to be overclocked). Anandtech has proved that it'll only hit 130W between 3.8 - 4.0GHz.

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Q8200 use 50W or less under load.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
TDP is just a spec for OEMs to ensure adequate cooling for a given class of processors. It doesn't correlate to actual power consumption.

But that adequate cooling solution does correlate directly to cost for system integrators and if 100% of all chips at a given TDP classification are actually well padded for that TDP rating then you can bet their would be significant pushback by the OEM's to have their costs reduced with Intel reducing the TDP ratings so they are accurate.

Originally posted by: harpoon84
The QX9650 actually uses ~65W under load, yet is rated at 130W TDP (because its 'designed' to be overclocked). Anandtech has proved that it'll only hit 130W between 3.8 - 4.0GHz.

The problem here is you have been misled by Anandtech's sample size and your own interpretation of what TDP is intended to do for the manufacturer (Intel in this case). A TDP rating isn't intended to state that all chips of that rating will consume that power. It's not like GHz where all 3GHz rated chips had better dam well operate at 3GHz.

A TDP rating is intended to communicate to the system integrators that Intel will allow anything under the sun that consumes as much power as the TDP (under their internally specified operating conditions and codes) in order to reach the rated GHz. This means yes there will be a (ghast, shock, horror) distribution of power-consumption from the chips for a given speedbin. Sadly this has always been the case for 50 yrs.

So did Anand's QX9650 consume much less than the TDP rating? You bet, that's actually how you know they got a cherry-picked sample. Why is the rating so high for QX9650? Because there are QX9650's out there that actually will consume 129.9W when operating the codes that Intel uses to classify TDP rankings. There were chips that consumed 131W too, they get downbinned in clockspeed and sold for less $.

Will Q8200 use 50W? Sure there will be some that do, and you are guaranteed there will be some that consume 90W. Intel wouldn't waste time, effort, and money making everyone accommodate a 95W TDP spec for 100% of the Q8200's on the market if absolutely none of them actually need the cooling. The proof is in the pudding, if you know enough about the industry to know why TDP ratings exist and what they do to the manufacturers clockspeed distributions of saleable product.

 

[wwswimming]

"Free Intel BunnyPeople Keytag w/ purchase, limited offer"

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115055

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: clarkey01
I wonder how fast this thing can hit

Multiplier of only 7x...does not bode well for OC'ing.

Yah, wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot. Get those Q6600s while you can!

Exactly - if only they did a die shrink to 45nm

think they call it a q9650

 

[Spicedaddy]

bleh, 1333 FSB