Intel quietly releases three new processors

Intel quietly releases three new processors

Intel has quietly introduced three new processors to its lineup that are designed to target different segments of the market.

Earlier this week, Intel quietly released three new desktop processors aimed at different market segments, including one mainstream quad-core part that might catch the eyes of budding enthusiasts in the same way that the Q6600 did.

The Core 2 Quad Q8200 is clocked at 2.33GHz, comes with 4MB of L2 cache and a 1,333MHz front side bus speed – it's listed on Intel's official price list at $224 per processor when purchased in 1,000 unit trays; Scan, meanwhile, has it on sale for £158.50 (inc. VAT).

What's more there are several features missing from the chip – at least one of those may please some of you out there. There's no support for Intel's Virtualization Technology and Trusted Execution Technology is also missing as well.

The 4MB of L2 cache is also pretty light on the ground as well – it's 2MB less than what the Q9300 offers, and just half what a typical Kentsfield processor (like the Q6600) has. As a result, I'm not convinced that the Q8200 represents great value at its current price – not only does it have less cache than the Q6600, but the clock speed is also lower as well. The optimisations Intel made in the Penryn refresh may make up for that clock speed deficit, but there's a hefty difference in price – the Q6600 retails for just £126.77 these days.

Intel has also introduced the Core 2 Duo E5200, which features a 2.5GHz clock speed, 2MB of L2 cache, an 800MHz front side bus and is based on Intel's 45nm process technology. Overclockers has the chip on sale for just under £60.

Finally, there's also a new Celeron – a 65nm, 2.2GHz processor with 512KB of L2 cache and an 800MHz front side bus speed. We've not found it available in the UK yet, but Intel lists it at $53 per chip in 1,000 unit quantities.

Earlier this week, AMD announced its latest run of price cuts but didn't introduce any new processors. AMD can compete against Intel's new offerings – its Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition fares pretty well against the Core 2 Quad Q6600, so it should also be on good terms with the Q8200. Where it falls down is on both power consumption and overclockability – areas where the Q8200 is likely to be very strong.

The E5200, on the other hand, will sit up against the Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Black Edition (2.8GHz, 65nm) and the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0GHz, 90nm). For out and out processor performance the E5200 is likely to come up trumps, but if you're after an integrated graphics solution, the AMD 780G chipset is better than anything Intel has at the moment.

At the bottom end of the spectrum, the Celeron 450 is likely to sit in the same price range as the Athlon 64 X2 4200+, which is available for just over £30 and that's going to be the more attractive option at this price point.

Do any of these processors entice you and do you think they bring anything new to the market? Tell us in the forums.


Discuss in the forums Reply
naokaji 5th September 2008, 12:13 Quote
E5200 FTW... all hail the new budget king fast, cheap and low power consumption, the Q8200 however is pointless in my opinion, Q6600 forever (does not apply to america where Q9450 and Q9550 are priced reasonably).
pistol_pete 5th September 2008, 12:45 Quote
If my maths is right, the Q8200 will have a multiplier of 7?

That means to get to the 3.6Ghz a Q6600 should usually be able to reach, the FSB will need to be 514Mhz? That's pretty high, overclockers will struggle unless they've got the best of boards.

So why not just get the Q6600?
Paradigm Shifter 5th September 2008, 13:04 Quote
That 7x multi on the 8200 is going to limit it to all but the most FSB happy boards... at least if you want it clocked fast. On the other hand, that 5200, with a 12.5x multi (presumably unlocked downwards) looks awful nice for a budget chip. Makes me tempted to get one to put in my HTPC.
Cupboard 5th September 2008, 18:08 Quote
I can't imagine why you would want the Q8200 unless you aren't wanting to overclock it and just want a processor that runs cooler than the Q6600. It has a lower stock clock, a higher stock fsb and is more expensive. Doesn't really make sense!
p3n 5th September 2008, 19:08 Quote
The poor schmucks who buy celerons based on the clockspeed :<
Tulatin 5th September 2008, 20:52 Quote
At least these aren't as bad as the Q9400 that I've seen around lately. They quietly snuck it in in place of the 9450 in most places, it's like $5 cheaper, and has half the cache. ****.
DaMightyMouse 11th September 2008, 09:00 Quote
Q6600 for eva :D
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