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