Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

news on intel cpu price cuts -q6600 $266 !!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2007 2:47:53 AM

Hi guys checkout this news artice, on intel cutting its q6600 cpu prices to mere 266$. 8O
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12023

Your thoughts on this . :) 
March 14, 2007 2:51:44 AM

we'll i think i should wait and get a c2d when the e4400 or e4300 really hit the cheap price. but $266 for a quad core 8O 8O jesus intel really wants a price war
March 14, 2007 2:54:08 AM

8O

Quote:
Better yet, a rumored 2.66GHz/1333MHz Core 2 Duo E6750 will tumble down to just $183 in the third quarter.


:lol:  . o O (I did have my heart set on a E6300 for $183)
Related resources
March 14, 2007 3:18:11 AM

Yeah i am getting myself a q6600 , about time something good happened out of this crap created by AMD.

The only time i got f***** over was when i switched to AMD.

I like Amd but if they arent willing to shape up its better to let them burn :twisted:
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
March 14, 2007 3:26:45 AM

Wow, I may just get a quad core for doing video encoding when I do my next upgrade.
March 14, 2007 3:32:33 AM

Would quad core be the choice for a budget server for the home?
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
March 14, 2007 3:36:44 AM

I would say a quad core for a home server is a waste of money, unless it will be doing a lot heavy CPU processing. If the server's purpose is mainly to allow you to share/store data, then even a "weak" single core CPU will suffice.
March 14, 2007 3:56:53 AM

Agreed. Usually the oldest computer in the house fitted with a lot of storage is sufficient for a server. I had a good media server going using a Celeron 1.7GHz chip and only 256MB RAM. I used it for video encoding (slow, but you can just let batch files run overnight) and music and video serving. I had VLC streaming video live, downsampling real-time as necessitated by occational use of Wireless-B (use ethernet or 802.11g or better for video streaming). Anyway, the old CPU had plenty of oomph for home server use.

I am intrigued to see how cheap the quad-cores will be so soon. $266 is about the upper-bound of what I'll spend on a CPU, and it'd be tempting to get one of these just for the tech's sake. However, I cannot justify the purchase when a $95 X2 3600+ will still be overkill for most of my needs. Only Folding@Home could drive up my processor requirements, and really I don't make enough money to change purchasing strategies based on a charitible project.
March 14, 2007 4:00:26 AM

makes me think their 45nm chips are going to be huge, and they want to empty the shelves before they release that, and not get stuck like they did with P4's sitting on a shelf somewhere, wasting away...

that or they are just all out trying to kill AMD so they can go back to selling sub par chips for massively inflated prices...
March 14, 2007 5:57:53 AM

doesn't this processor cost around ~$800 right now? if so then thats a very impressive cut 8O .
March 14, 2007 6:03:11 AM

Quote:
doesn't this processor cost around ~$800 right now? if so then thats a very impressive cut 8O .


Yeah isnt it AWESOME ..wooohooo :D 

Glad i didnt upgrade yet 8)
March 14, 2007 6:20:56 AM

Yeah. It's selling for $851 now in batches of 1000. The 6850 3Ghz Core 2 will be $266 as well. Since I have no real need for a quad core the 6850 will be going in my rig :D 
March 14, 2007 6:46:39 AM

does that mean intel are making approx ~$600 more right now on chips?

if they can still make money on $266 amd are officially screwed.
March 14, 2007 7:05:57 AM

I can finally throw away this cruddy HeatBurst processor!
March 14, 2007 7:39:16 AM

For that kind of cash I'd upgrade my four week old e6600 (Vue would love that kind of oomph).
March 14, 2007 7:44:17 AM

I would hope that these rumours are true - but I'm sceptical.
A so low pricing, would collapse Intels pricing structure, unless there is a whole batch of new highend processors with clocks way over 3GHz - and I don't see that until Penryn ships in volume in Q1/08.
Apart from destroying Intels average CPU selling price, it would also make the planned new lowend chips moot - with the E4xxx so cheap, why save a few dollars more? And the gab between the new Extreme QX6800 at $999 and the Q6600 is also too huge to justify paying for the QX6800.

But the rumour absolutely could destroy AMD's stock and credit rating making it impossible to finance new factories, thereby damaging AMD's long term strategy. Intel's strategy can afford a lowered stock price resulting from lowered earings, because new factories can be financed from cash reserves, while AMD can't do that.
March 14, 2007 7:47:09 AM

Quote:
For that kind of cash I'd upgrade my four week old e6600 (Vue would love that kind of oomph).


Sorry, if the rumours are true, you won't be able to. The new, low, low prices are only for the line with a 1333MHz FSB, which requires a new motherboard. The article says, that no price cut is planned for the existing line with the 1066MHz FSB.
March 14, 2007 8:14:44 AM

Would a quad core really be better than a dual core for a gaming rig?? I haven't seen any conclusive test that show a sizeable difference in benchmarks to warrant going quad over dual or is the quad mainly a server cpu??
March 14, 2007 8:21:48 AM

Quote:
Would a quad core really be better than a dual core for a gaming rig?? I haven't seen any conclusive test that show a sizeable difference in benchmarks to warrant going quad over dual or is the quad mainly a server cpu??


Every test (and there is quite a few) out there shows that a faster clocked dual core is better than a slower quad for gaming.
But for multitasking and videoencoding quadcore sure is nice - quad is not just for servers.
March 14, 2007 8:23:24 AM

Quote:
Would a quad core really be better than a dual core for a gaming rig?? I haven't seen any conclusive test that show a sizeable difference in benchmarks to warrant going quad over dual or is the quad mainly a server cpu??


Depends on the game.
March 14, 2007 9:20:50 AM

Quote:
8O

Better yet, a rumored 2.66GHz/1333MHz Core 2 Duo E6750 will tumble down to just $183 in the third quarter.


:lol:  . o O (I did have my heart set on a E6300 for $183)

The 6300 is at $183 now! Check it on Newegg!
March 14, 2007 9:22:19 AM

:lol:  . o O (I know, I know... but if I wait, it should even be lower!!)

8O . o O (Or... I could settle for the E6750 for $183 bucks)

Edit:

:o  . o <( Decisions, Decisions...)
March 14, 2007 9:53:29 AM

Quote:
Every test (and there is quite a few) out there shows that a faster clocked dual core is better than a slower quad for gaming.


This is to be expected since the idea of multi-core is still quite new. There are only a few games today that make use of the new ability.

However: A year from now? Multi-core will be the norm and popular old games as well as the new will be programmed to make use of it.
March 14, 2007 9:54:16 AM

At this rate , AMD is going to be doomed . Supreme commander comes to mind Quad -gaming .

266$ hmmm 8)
March 14, 2007 10:07:53 AM

Quote:
Every test (and there is quite a few) out there shows that a faster clocked dual core is better than a slower quad for gaming.


This is to be expected since the idea of multi-core is still quite new. There are only a few games today that make use of the new ability.

However: A year from now? Multi-core will be the norm and popular old games as well as the new will be programmed to make use of it.

I think it will take more than a year for true multi-threaded games to be common. Today not even one truely multi-threaded game is in the market, and only one game in beta (Alan Wake) has been shown to be multi-threaded. There is a whole lot of issues which have to be considered when making a game truely multi-threaded (load balanced n-threads), so it is far from a trivial task to do. Look at least 2 years before you can find a hand full of topgames using mulitiple cores in any meaningful way, and 5 years before it will be common.
I would say that if you are going to buy a gaming PC this year, then get a fast dual core, but if you are more a general power user then get a quad.
March 14, 2007 12:49:40 PM

What would be the equivalent AMD chip performance and price?
March 14, 2007 12:59:16 PM

Sorry, if the rumours are true, you won't be able to. The new, low, low prices are only for the line with a 1333MHz FSB, which requires a new motherboard. The article says, that no price cut is planned for the existing line with the 1066MHz FSB.[/quote]

Typical :roll:
March 14, 2007 1:05:22 PM

Some motherboards have launched with official support for the 1333 FSB. The only issue is wheter or not the VRM will be changed, which I don't see happening until at least the 45nm if not Nehalem.
March 14, 2007 1:49:51 PM

Quote:
Yeah i am getting myself a q6600 , about time something good happened out of this crap created by AMD.

The only time i got f***** over was when i switched to AMD.

I like Amd but if they arent willing to shape up its better to let them burn :twisted:



to bad you cant vote negative
March 14, 2007 3:07:32 PM

I was all set to order the parts for a build then you have to post this...jeez have you no heart???

Oh my, if I wait till Q3 I could get the Q6600 for $266....
March 14, 2007 3:09:29 PM

Oldguy confused. New releases will be 1333 fsb. Many high end socket 775 mb (notably 6xx chipsets) show support 1066/1333 fsb. Does this mean a bios flash will allow the use of the new cpu? Related question is whether or not the DDR3 standards will have significant impact on performance or will high en oc DDR2 suffice in current mb configurations..

Also saw some details on new ICH9 chipsets to add to cunfusion vs current chipsets. Oh well, at least last week's thread on boring times for enthusiasts no longer applies.
March 14, 2007 4:26:14 PM

Sorry for my lack of Knowledge, but when is Q3? I guess for some reason I thought Q1 actually ended with the end of the year? But I could be wrong.
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
March 14, 2007 4:43:36 PM

Quote:
makes me think their 45nm chips are going to be huge, and they want to empty the shelves before they release that, and not get stuck like they did with P4's sitting on a shelf somewhere, wasting away...

that or they are just all out trying to kill AMD so they can go back to selling sub par chips for massively inflated prices...


I think it is both. But the situation will be slightly different regarding stock. The C2D clearly has a performance advantage over the P4s, so Intel needed to drop the prices to clear out as much stock as possible.

Intial 45nm C2Ds will not really improve performance by much, but enthusiasts will prefer them over the 65nm versions because of the overclocking potential. Having 1333Mhz FSB isn't bad either.

Intel's intent on sqwashing AMD was apparent when they first released the C2D last year. They could have easily charged more money for the CPUs because at stock speed they performed better than their Athlon counterparts.

Selling a C2Q for $266 is simply a continuation of the same strategy. While it's nice buy a powerful CPU for a cheap price, it sure ain't gonna do wonders for Intel's stock prices. As a consumer I'm happy, but as an Intel stockholder I am not (I've been an Intel stockholder since my Athlon XP days).

Intel should back off on it's price war with AMD. The absolute worst possible thing to happen would be for AMD to be driven out of business. If that would to ever happen then every consumer would lose.
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 115 å Intel
March 14, 2007 4:48:03 PM

Quote:
Sorry for my lack of Knowledge, but when is Q3? I guess for some reason I thought Q1 actually ended with the end of the year? But I could be wrong.


Calander Year:

Q1 = Jan - Mar
Q2 = Apr - Jun
Q3 = Jul - Sep
Q4 = Oct - Dec

A company's fiscal year can be different. For example, Q1 could be Aug to Oct. When companies state they are going to release a product in a particular quarter, they usually mean calander year, not fiscal year because the general public does not know when each and every company in world begins their fiscal year.
March 14, 2007 5:04:57 PM

So they say.Latest bios from Gigabyte and Asus - and all other 965 mobos as well i guess - add support for 1333 CPUs.That of course remains to be seen when we have those CPUs.I would never trust Intel on such future changes though.As for DDR3 , if anyone has numbers i would like to see them too , or else i would say it looks like DDR to DDR2 situation.Intel used DDR2 , AMD didnt and it wasnt that much of a problem at least for some time.
March 14, 2007 5:17:21 PM

Quote:

I think it is both. But the situation will be slightly different regarding stock. The C2D clearly has a performance advantage over the P4s, so Intel needed to drop the prices to clear out as much stock as possible.


I think you are right about that and i think its one of the reasons they didint have very cheap C2D from start.People can still buy a CPU based on MHz or the Intel brand ,no matter how old this thing is.
March 14, 2007 5:18:29 PM

Quote:

that or they are just all out trying to kill AMD so they can go back to selling sub par chips for massively inflated prices...


That would be anyone's business model in their position, I'd expect. Although 'kill off' is a bit much with current anti-trust laws. I think 'relegate to a permanent second class competitor with perpetual 10% market share' would be more accurate.
March 14, 2007 5:36:52 PM

I'm worried about AMD. I mean how can AMD use 65 nm and afford to sell a quad core $266. AMD is in big trouble. Lately, after all the delays, I've started switching to the Intel (CPU) and nvidia (GPU) side, and I'm sure many AMD fans are .
March 14, 2007 5:44:24 PM

its awesome.
March 14, 2007 5:53:17 PM

Ok, I am also a little confused about something. There has been studies that show that right now the fsb is not a bottleneck. On AMD stuff they were able to slow the fsb down to 400 mhz and get the same fps that they did at the native 2000 mhz on the processor. Will it really make a difference if you move up to the 1333 mhz from the 1066? Also, I understand that the new Intel processors will be 1333 mhz fsb, but are they also 45 nanometer or are they still 65 nanometer? One last thing, if the charts are true It wouldn't matter at all if you get a motherboard that has 1333 mhz fsb because the q6600 is a 1066 mhz fsb.

So I guess what I am really asking is other for the clarification is, should I go with a E6600 in April or should I get a hold me over processor until I can get my hands on a the $266 Q6600?



These are the charts.
Dual Core
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachment.php?aid=502695&noup...
Quad Core
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachment.php?aid=502410&noup...


Also tell me if this is a good system for under $2500 on newegg.

~My future system~
- GIGABYTE GZ-FA1CA-ASS Silver 1.0 mm Aluminum body ATX Full Tower
- E6600 or Q6600?????
- G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL4D-2GBPK (x2 = 4gb)
- R600 (X2900XTX or is it the X2800XTX??)
- ASUS P5W DH DELUXE/WIFI-AP LGA 775 Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard
- Thermaltake W0116RU Complies with ATX 12V 2.2 & EPS 12V version 750W
- HITACHI Deskstar T7K500 HDT725032VLA360 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s
- SAMSUNG 206BW Black 20" 2 ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor
- LITE-ON Black IDE DVD-ROM Drive Model LH-16D1P-185
- ASUS 16X DVD±R DVD Burner with 12X DVD-RAM Write, LightScribe Technology, Include Free CD Case Black E-IDE/ATAPI Model DRW-1612-CAB
- Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite 7.1 Channels PCI Interface Sound Card
- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate DVD
- ZALMAN 9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler
March 14, 2007 5:56:37 PM

Quote:
Would quad core be the choice for a budget server for the home?


Quad core and budget server are an oxymoron. What are you doing at home that requires any real horsepower from a server at all???

I'd probably suggest a P3 or A-XP for a home server as they're fast enough, and don't really require much power, a necessity since servers tend to be on all the time. My home server uses a 100W power supply and a P3-733. Does apache, ftp, mail, and file services just fine.
March 14, 2007 6:10:31 PM

Quote:
Ok, I am also a little confused about something. There has been studies that show that right now the fsb is not a bottleneck. On AMD stuff they were able to slow the fsb down to 400 mhz and get the same fps that they did at the native 2000 mhz on the processor. Will it really make a difference if you move up to the 1333 mhz from the 1066? Also, I understand that the new Intel processors will be 1333 mhz fsb, but are they also 45 nanometer or are they still 65 nanometer? One last thing, if the charts are true It wouldn't matter at all if you get a motherboard that has 1333 mhz fsb because the q6600 is a 1066 mhz fsb.

So I guess what I am really asking is other for the clarification is, should I go with a E6600 in April or should I get a hold me over processor until I can get my hands on a the $266 Q6600?



These are the charts.
Dual Core
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachment.php?aid=502695&noup...
Quad Core
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachment.php?aid=502410&noup...


Also tell me if this is a good system for under $2500 on newegg.

~My future system~
- GIGABYTE GZ-FA1CA-ASS Silver 1.0 mm Aluminum body ATX Full Tower
- E6600 or Q6600?????
- G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL4D-2GBPK (x2 = 4gb)
- R600 (X2900XTX or is it the X2800XTX??)
- ASUS P5W DH DELUXE/WIFI-AP LGA 775 Intel 975X ATX Intel Motherboard
- Thermaltake W0116RU Complies with ATX 12V 2.2 & EPS 12V version 750W
- HITACHI Deskstar T7K500 HDT725032VLA360 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s
- SAMSUNG 206BW Black 20" 2 ms (GTG) DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor
- LITE-ON Black IDE DVD-ROM Drive Model LH-16D1P-185
- ASUS 16X DVD±R DVD Burner with 12X DVD-RAM Write, LightScribe Technology, Include Free CD Case Black E-IDE/ATAPI Model DRW-1612-CAB
- Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite 7.1 Channels PCI Interface Sound Card
- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate DVD
- ZALMAN 9700 LED 110mm 2 Ball CPU Cooler


I bought a Celeron D 360 to "hold me over" until the intel prices drop on the C2D, for my second comp. I figured I'd buy a cheap mATX mobo and build a setup to sell the Celeron later on. Now....it looks like I might be waiting another 3 months.......damn.

BTW, the Celeron is 3.46 ghz stock. I've got it OC'ed to 4.63 ghz with no voltage changes and it scores in SiSandra are equivalent to an FX-57 8)
March 14, 2007 6:20:43 PM

Quote:
Would quad core be the choice for a budget server for the home?


Quad core and budget server are an oxymoron. What are you doing at home that requires any real horsepower from a server at all???

Today Quad core and budget are in contradiction, but if the rumours are true then it won't be so by Q307. And yes, certainly a home server can need a powerful CPU - if it does videoencoding, as part of a DVR network, where the server captures, encodes and stores video for later viewing.
March 14, 2007 6:26:26 PM

Quote:
Every test (and there is quite a few) out there shows that a faster clocked dual core is better than a slower quad for gaming.


This is to be expected since the idea of multi-core is still quite new. There are only a few games today that make use of the new ability.

However: A year from now? Multi-core will be the norm and popular old games as well as the new will be programmed to make use of it.

I think it will take more than a year for true multi-threaded games to be common. Today not even one truely multi-threaded game is in the market, and only one game in beta (Alan Wake) has been shown to be multi-threaded. There is a whole lot of issues which have to be considered when making a game truely multi-threaded (load balanced n-threads), so it is far from a trivial task to do. Look at least 2 years before you can find a hand full of topgames using mulitiple cores in any meaningful way, and 5 years before it will be common.
I would say that if you are going to buy a gaming PC this year, then get a fast dual core, but if you are more a general power user then get a quad.

I know Supreme Commander is capable of using a quad core. What's the difference between that and a 'truely multi-threaded game'?
March 14, 2007 6:27:01 PM

Quote:
What would be the equivalent AMD chip performance and price?

Today, and probably for the next 6 months AMD does not have anything performing like the Q6600 at any price. The first AMD quad core is the K10/Barcelona design, which is scheduled for Q3, but as a server chip at first - so it's not like Intel needs to lower the price of the Q6600 to compete in the desktop market. It's more the Xeon 53xx's which finally are going to have some competition in Q3.
March 14, 2007 6:43:17 PM

Quote:
I know Supreme Commander is capable of using a quad core. What's the difference between that and a 'truely multi-threaded game'?


I don't know "Supreme Commander". Do you have any benchmarks showing that it benefits from more cores?

The difference between a non multi threaded program, a simple multi threaded program and a truely multi threaded program is the way it devides its workload. A non multi threaded program is just that: Nothing happens concurrently - when the program is working on something, everything else inside the program is suspended.
A simple multi threaded program might open new threads to actions which is detached from the main execution. Such as printing, accepting user input, playing background music, saving a backup copy in the background.
But that does not adequately distribute the load between the different threads, and as such do not help the operating system in distributing the load between different CPU cores.
A truely multi-threaded program takes the main execution thread and divides the job up in n-threads which can be distributed between different CPU cores, each being distributed an equal part of the application (game) execution work. That is hard to do and conceptually very different coding than a single execution thread. Additionally you need some inter thread communication (which must not become another bottleneck) to exchange data and avoid deadlock and concurrent data modification problems.
March 14, 2007 6:59:40 PM

Quote:
Ok, I am also a little confused about something. There has been studies that show that right now the fsb is not a bottleneck. Will it really make a difference if you move up to the 1333 mhz from the 1066?

I guess not. In the original link it also states that upping the FSB won't give better performance (but it sure doesn't hurt). So maybe they are going to lower the price to get people over on the new platform (Bearlake).

Quote:
Also, I understand that the new Intel processors will be 1333 mhz fsb, but are they also 45 nanometer or are they still 65 nanometer?

Anything new mentioned (the 6x50 series) will be 65nm. Penryn (45nm) is first comming in Q407, and any new architecture (Nehalem) is 2008.

Quote:
One last thing, if the charts are true It wouldn't matter at all if you get a motherboard that has 1333 mhz fsb because the q6600 is a 1066 mhz fsb.

Yes, for the Q6600 that is true. The article mentions that it is only the new chips (having 1333MHz FSB) which are having their price reduced, but at least the Q6600 is mentioned as also having it's price lowered. It's a bit unclear, which is another reason for why I don't really trust the prices mentioned for Q3.

Quote:
So I guess what I am really asking is other for the clarification is, should I go with a E6600 in April or should I get a hold me over processor until I can get my hands on a the $266 Q6600?


Wait for the April 22 price drop (which is official) and get the Q6600 for $530 - a good deal anyway. A E6600(now)+$266(Q3) is going to be more expensive than $530(April 22), and you will have the joy of 4 cores earlier.
March 14, 2007 7:16:34 PM

nah it will not :)  valve already working on it

ive seen the alan wake demo with a quad core and it was really cool how it worked. anyway i will say a year and u will see alot of games that support it, wait and see.
!