PDA

View Full Version : Intel now shipping 45nm Yorkfield CPUs for next week


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

AthlonXP1800
03-08-08, 02:53 PM
Q9450 when when when when when ??

Next week!!! :D

Intel 45nm Yorkfield CPUs to start selling next week.

As you know, the shipments of 45nm quad-core Core 2 Quad processors were delayed due to issues with processor system bus discovered in them. These Yorkfield processors on the new C1 stepping that would be free from this problem were expected to arrive in early March. According to sources, the new processor went into mass production exactly as planned and next week we should see 45nm Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 in retail stores already. The mass production processors will be based solely on C1 stepping, which doesn’t have any changes to its thermal, electrical or mechanical specifications compared with the previous C0 processor stepping that is used widely in dual-core Wolfdale processors these days.

Quad-core Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Core 2 Quad Q9450 processors will be designed to work at 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz respectively. For the first time for Core 2 Quad family they will work with 1333MHz bus and thanks to 45nm process they will feature total 12MB of L2 cache memory. Core 2 Quad Q9300 works at 2.5GHz frequency and also supports 1333MHz bus, however its L2 cache is only 6MB big. All new quad-core processors feature 95W TDP. The official prices of Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 models are set at $530, $316 and $266 respectively. Nevertheless, they will be priced a bit higher in stores, because of high customer demand, which Intel cannot satisfy so far.

Intel chief executive Paul Otellini said to analysts during the recent meeting that the company was working hard to eliminate the shortages of their 45nm processors. Intel is currently manufacturing about 100 thousand 45nm processors a day offering 72 different models in desktop, server and mobile segments. The company has already made 3.5 million 45nm CPUs by now and is not going to stop just yet. According to their revealed plans, each fourth Intel processors will be manufactured with 45nm process by the end of Q1 2008, and by second half of Q3, they will be producing equal amounts of 65nm and 45nm solutions.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080307105007_Yorkfield_Processors_to_Start_Selli ng_Next_Week.html

Yorkfield CPUs with new C1 stepping will give better overclocking than old C0 stepping.

I wont get Q9450 right away, I will wait until Nvidia launched Hybrid SLi for Intel and read review about Arctic Cooling Freezer Xtreme to decide between it and Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme.

jAkUp
03-08-08, 03:19 PM
1333MHz Bus + locked multi = :(

mullet
03-08-08, 03:55 PM
Q9450 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-12 @ 3.6 with good temps im happy!!!

stncttr908
03-08-08, 04:03 PM
Q9450 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-12 @ 3.6 with good temps im happy!!!
This is what I'm looking to do myself. :)

mullet
03-08-08, 04:05 PM
This is what I'm looking to do myself. :)

ooooh I forgot 2x2GB DDR2 & Vista 64bit.

Uberpwnage
03-08-08, 05:11 PM
1333MHz Bus + locked multi = :(

QX9650 = :D
Wallet = :cry:

I've been wondering, whats the real big benefit for anyone in switching from FSB 1066 to FSB 1333? Enthusiasts like us can take the FSB to w/e we want...and how much does that extra 266MHz do for the average pc user? Seems like all it's doing is hurting overclockers.

Amuro
03-08-08, 09:20 PM
Just ditch the FSB architecture dammit!

Zapablast05
03-08-08, 10:19 PM
Just ditch the FSB architecture dammit!

+1

My motherboard has a 1333 FSB architecture but I'm at 1600MHz FSB right now and I'm completely fine.

Redeemed
03-09-08, 12:38 AM
Okay, if I could buy a Q6600 for $200, or the Q9450 for about $350... what would you guys chose?

crainger
03-09-08, 01:10 AM
Q9450 if you can. It should have a better OC, run a little cooler and the SSE4 instructions will help in a few media applications.

Redeemed
03-09-08, 01:44 AM
Q9450 if you can. It should have a better OC, run a little cooler and the SSE4 instructions will help in a few media applications.
Hmm...

Would I be off to assume that I should be able to hit 3.4 on air with the Q6600? So would you expect 3.6 to 3.8 with the Q9450 then?

Technoholic
03-09-08, 03:34 AM
Hmm...

Would I be off to assume that I should be able to hit 3.4 on air with the Q6600? So would you expect 3.6 to 3.8 with the Q9450 then?
Right.. And it should be cooler too.

I don't know how it happened, but I managed to sell my laptop and I'm getting my paycheck soon and I'm in time for 9450. What is this? Fate? :captnkill:

Hurry up 9450!

AthlonXP1800
03-09-08, 03:38 AM
Hmm...

Would I be off to assume that I should be able to hit 3.4 on air with the Q6600? So would you expect 3.6 to 3.8 with the Q9450 then?

Yes with C1 stepping. Last month Hardspell received news leaked Q9300 C1 sample overclocked from 2.5GHz to 3.6GHz and the Vcore is impressed 1.256V at 480MHz FSB for the 3.6GHz. Not bad for Q9300 with 7.5 multiply.

Q9450 with 8 multiply on 480MHz FSB can overclock to 3.8GHz with around the same Vcore as Q9300.

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=2464

MUYA
03-09-08, 04:31 AM
Thing is ..in HKG, they are available for pre-order...but the Q9450 was quoted at HK$3500 or USD$450 ...thats USD$182 over the wholesale price (1,000 per lot)

walterman
03-09-08, 08:41 AM
The ASUS Rampage Formula X48 is scheduled for this week too in some german sellers. I cross my fingers. I pre-ordered all my parts in early January. I'll be happy with a 8x450MHz OC in my Q9450.

Lenin
03-09-08, 05:55 PM
Okay, if I could buy a Q6600 for $200, or the Q9450 for about $350... what would you guys chose?
I would take the Q6600, of course, w/o hesitating a single second, and spend the rest on pr0n :D

crainger
03-09-08, 06:17 PM
I would take the Q6600, of course, w/o hesitating a single second, and spend the rest on pr0n :D

Redeemed doesn't do pr0n. So 9450 is teh answer.

Lenin
03-09-08, 06:22 PM
Redeemed doesn't do pr0n.
He doesn't need to buy ordinary (male-female) pr0n like me, he can get gay pr0n as well if he prefers it :captnkill:

crainger
03-09-08, 06:51 PM
Everyone is just spoilt for choice these days.

JohnDoe641
03-11-08, 10:57 PM
Fina-freaking-lly.

Maybe now I can get my new system running by the end of the month. D:

nemecb
03-12-08, 11:13 AM
So are these actually in any stores yet (none of the ones I generally shop at seem to have them)? I'm seriously considering just ordering the system with the 6600 since the performance difference isn't likely to be huge and the 45nm processors are probably going to have a price premium for a while that I'm not going to pay anyway.

Dazz
03-12-08, 11:24 AM
The main reason for me getting the Q9450 over the Q6600 is that it runs cooler and needs less voltage. But the high FSB is a downer.

AthlonXP1800
03-12-08, 08:17 PM
So are these actually in any stores yet (none of the ones I generally shop at seem to have them)? I'm seriously considering just ordering the system with the 6600 since the performance difference isn't likely to be huge and the 45nm processors are probably going to have a price premium for a while that I'm not going to pay anyway.

If you look at x264 benchmark here (http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/results.htm), I think you will see big difference in clock speed when overclocking. A 3.91GHz Q6600's performance is about the same as 3.47GHz Q9450 using same FSB speed on similar spec but the benchmark only showed Q9450 ES at 7.5 multipler:

Q6600 Kentsfield 4 9.0 x 434 3.91 P35 5-5-5-18 @ 868 Windows XP Pro x32 FPS1: 195.01 FPS2: 54.65
Q9450 ES Yorkfield 4 7.5 x 450 3.38 P35 4-5-4-11 @ 900 Windows XP Pro x32 FPS1: 189.83 FPS2: 50.17

Base on calculation, here what the Q9450 performance like on 8 x 450 and 8 x 434:

Q9450 Yorkfield 4 8 x 450 3.60 P35 4-5-4-11 @ 900 Windows XP Pro x32 FPS1: 202.48 FPS2: 53.51
Q9450 Yorkfield 4 8 x 434 3.47 P35 4-5-4-11 @ 900 Windows XP Pro x32 FPS1: 195.28 FPS2: 51.61

A 3.47GHz Q9450 on 8 x 434 performed like a 3.91GHz Q6600, 440MHz clock difference.

nemecb
03-12-08, 08:48 PM
Ugh, so apparently you edited your post while I was replying, but the point I was going to make still stands. A 3.38 9450 is approximately equivalent to a 3.6 Q6600 (a little slower actually, so the difference is probably smaller than that), which is only a little over 5% difference. Not earthshaking by any means. I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but since they seem to be based on speculation (and an unlocked multi?) I think I'll stick with what's actually in the table.

XDanger
03-15-08, 07:04 AM
Q9450 450x8 1:1 4-4-4-12 @ 3.6 with good temps im happy!!!
Same here if I decide on the Q but maybe a bit higher fsb.

Otherwise its e8500 till a mobo upgrade next year.


So glad I chose the P5B-D