bit-tech.net

Intel announces 16 new 45nm CPUs at CES

Intel announces 16 new 45nm CPUs at CES

Intel has announced 16 new 45nm CPUs this morning.

Intel has announced 16 new 45nm processors today, including its first Penryn family processors for notebooks based on Intel’s Centrino platform.

These notebook processors range from the flagship Core 2 Extreme X9000—which is clocked at 2.8GHz and features an unlocked multiplier—right the way down to the Core 2 Duo T8100 that is clocked at a fairly modest 2.1GHz.

All of the announced notebook processors are dual-core variants and use an 800MHz front side bus. The X9000, T9500 and T9300 feature a 6MB shared L2 cache, while the T8300 and T8100’s L2 cache is just half the size of the 9000-series processors.

Along with the notebook processors, Intel has announced three mainstream quad-core desktop processors, the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – all of which will be available sometime in Q1 2008. The Q9550 and Q9450 feature a 12MB shared L2 cache and are clocked at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, while the Q9300 is clocked at 2.50GHz and features just 6MB of L2 cache.

For those of you that aren’t interested in the quad-core parts, there are four new 45nm dual-core processors: the E8500, E8400, E8200 and E8190. All of these chips have a 6MB shared L2 cache, while the clocks range from 2.66GHz right the way up to 3.16GHz.

The difference between the E8200 and E8910 is small – the model number difference just indicates that there is no support for Intel Virtualisation Technology and Intel Trusted Execution Technology. All of these chips run on a 1333MHz front side bus and prices (in 1,000 unit quantities) range from $530 for the Q9550 to $163 for the E8200/E8190.

Finally, there are also four server processors—three quad-core and one dual-core chip—with clock speeds on the quad-core chips ranging from 2.50GHz to 2.83GHz – just like their desktop equivalents. They’re essentially the workstation equivalents to the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – we’ve included a full break down of the products below.

For now you can discuss in the forums.

20 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
oasked 7th January 2008, 20:59 Quote
Shame the Q9300 doesn't have 12mb of cache. I hope the quads are affordable, but I would imagine that its unlikely without any competition from AMD. :(
Firehed 7th January 2008, 21:03 Quote
Those Xeon prices combined with the imminent update to the Mac Pro are making me salivate.
Lazarus Dark 7th January 2008, 21:21 Quote
Q1 for the quads? Crap, I was really hoping they would be coming out this month. I need to build my new comp!
500mph 7th January 2008, 21:56 Quote
Quote:
Along with the notebook processors, Intel has announced three mainstream quad-core desktop processors, the Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 – all of which will be available sometime in Q1 2007. The Q9550 and Q9450 feature a 12MB shared L2 cache and are clocked at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, while the Q9300 is clocked at 2.50GHz and features just 6MB of L2 cache.

Q1 2007?
MaximumShow 7th January 2008, 22:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 500mph
Q1 2007?

The new penryns are just THAT fast.
Redbeaver 7th January 2008, 23:33 Quote
seems like Q9540 will be the next Q6600.... we'll just have to see the overclockability ;)
Dreaming 8th January 2008, 00:22 Quote
Apparently according to hexus the price will be aroud £150 for the Q9450. Bout £25 less for the Q9300.

I want, but can't justify the spend :(. Next upgrade will be later this year with some new graphics. There's nothing out there that is really benchmarked by cpu performance, but it's good intel is still pushing new processors out. No doubt to try to stay 2 steps ahead of AMD? They were all due for a january release but I heard a rumour somewhere that due to the 'economic realities' they'd been pushed back a tiny bit to febuary / march (economic realities: q6600 g0 still selling like hot cakes and still the best on the market by a long way, why would they beat their own product?). That was just a rumour but it seems to have a grain of truth if the new quad core processors aren't due for a january release yet every other 45nm cpu is. Perhaps it takes a bit longer to make the extra 2 cores, eh intel? :p

edit: those prices are the bulk-buy price for resellers, my apologies. I don't know how much mark up is typical.
sotu1 8th January 2008, 04:36 Quote
wow is it CES time already again!? that was quick!
Tim S 8th January 2008, 05:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 500mph
Q1 2007?
thanks, typing fast+lack of sleep = occasional typo ;)
Tim S 8th January 2008, 05:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
edit: those prices are the bulk-buy price for resellers, my apologies. I don't know how much mark up is typical.

Intel's price points rarely change - it just moves models down the range when faster ones become available.

Look at the price points in one of our previous CPU reviews and then go check those products' prices online - that'll be a rough guide as to how much they'll cost once they're available. I'm guessing the Q9450 will hit a similar price point to the Q6600 and the Q9550 will hit a similar price point to the Q6700. :)
ssj12 8th January 2008, 05:09 Quote
which will be better, the QX9650 or the Q9550? I'm building a new desktop soon so I need to know and wtf happened to the QX9770 being released?
Hugo 8th January 2008, 10:23 Quote
Well the QX9650 is a bit faster (3GHz vs 2.83) and has an unlocked multiplier so technically it is "better" but it's also likely to be way more expensive and probably not proportionally to the benefits.

Re: QX9770 - who cares? No-one is going to buy the damn thing are they? It's just an Intel e-peen chip.
mclean007 8th January 2008, 11:21 Quote
Quote:
The difference between the E8200 and E8910 is small
should be E8190
wuyanxu 8th January 2008, 15:22 Quote
ouch, the sweet spot with 12mb cache is too expensive.....

i'll wait for a refresher product, cheaper price and then upgrade.
Icy EyeG 8th January 2008, 18:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firehed
Those Xeon prices combined with the imminent update to the Mac Pro are making me salivate.

Doesn't Mac Pro uses 5000 Series LGA771 CPUs?
ssj12 8th January 2008, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel
Well the QX9650 is a bit faster (3GHz vs 2.83) and has an unlocked multiplier so technically it is "better" but it's also likely to be way more expensive and probably not proportionally to the benefits.

Re: QX9770 - who cares? No-one is going to buy the damn thing are they? It's just an Intel e-peen chip.

im considering the QX9770
tecate 9th January 2008, 08:00 Quote
E8400 seems to be a new bang-for-the-buck for those on shoestring budget. Coupled with 8800GT would make a nice budget gaming rig.
lectrician 13th January 2008, 18:55 Quote
-------------------------THIS-------IS--------THE------DEFINITIVE ANSWER----------------- ON -------THIS--------SUBJECT
Hi. Abouth the AGP bus bottleneck. I am inclined to believe its a myth put forward by those that need you to continue to spend money on new parts. this really sucks if you have a budget, and want full settings in games. The Bandwidth for AGP is 2.1 GB per second; unilaterally. So with this assumption the AGP would bottleneck a game with 512 MB textures like Quake 4 at 4 frames a second.

512MB+512MB+512MB+512MB=2 GB

this is simply not the case. I run AMD 4200+, 2GB DDRII 667, -----------------512 MB Radeon 1950 pro AGP 8x---------------
I get 4790 3dmarks in 3dmark 06, 60-100 FPS in Battlefield 2142 at supermax settings, 50-85 FPS in Team Fortress 2 Supermax settings, and UT3 is georgeous at 45 FPS 2 notches below all high detail. I push WAY MORE than 2.1 GB a second on this old 8x Bus. The biggest performance boost is RAM amount, and your processor power. pair this new AGP card with 2-4 GB of ram, and a 6000+ series intel or AMD chip and youve got a low budget monster killer on your hands that will run anything you throw its way; SUPERMAX.
and
lectrician 13th January 2008, 18:57 Quote
sorry, somehow the thread was changed, that was for the new 3850 or somesouch 8x AGP card
sapphire is releasing with ATI's new chipset.
Shielder 16th January 2008, 15:15 Quote
Okay, one thing that I'm wondering about is a comparison between the Q6600 and the Q9300 and Q9450. By all accounts, the Q6600 will fairly easily get to 3GHz on air, just by increasing the FSB to 1333MHz. Now, getting a Q6600 on a 1066MHz FSB costs ~£165. Getting a Q9300 or Q9450 on a 1333MHz FSB will cost between £150 and £200 (probably). Which would be better, considering that I'm going to be overclocking the Q6600 to 3GHz by increasing the FSB to 1333 anyway?

Has anyone done this comparison yet (assuming that the chips are available)?

Thanks

Andy
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums