Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel’s Dual-Processor Enthusiast Platform Set for Next Quarter Launch

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2007 4:45:51 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071011211728...

But those, who demand to have eight processing engines under the hood of their gaming station will have to pay a price for that. Each Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 will cost $1499 in business quantities, meaning that end-users will have to pay over $3000 for processors alone. Dual-socket mainboards for workstations typically cost from $300 to $550, whereas high-end graphics cards usually retail for $399 and upwards. Typically, high-end systems also use high-performance hard disk drives, such as Western Digital Raptor X 150GB, in addition to high-capacity HDDs, such as Seagate Barracuda 1TB, which are also not really affordable. As a result, gamers will have to pay roughly $6000 only for critical components, such as two Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 4GB of memory, 4 graphics cards, one high-speed HDD and one high-capacity HDD. Given that monitor, case, power supply, optical drive, workmanship, various software and so on also do not come for free, Intel Skulltrail gaming stations will easily pass $10 000 milestone.


October 12, 2007 4:53:29 PM

I believe they have a mistake in the article. The processors used in the Skulltrail are Xeon's. So they would be 771 sockets and not 775 sockets. It also means you can start out with slower processors if you want. The board is overclockable by the standard methods.
October 12, 2007 5:17:52 PM

Maziar said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20071011211728...

But those, who demand to have eight processing engines under the hood of their gaming station will have to pay a price for that. Each Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 will cost $1499 in business quantities, meaning that end-users will have to pay over $3000 for processors alone. Dual-socket mainboards for workstations typically cost from $300 to $550, whereas high-end graphics cards usually retail for $399 and upwards. Typically, high-end systems also use high-performance hard disk drives, such as Western Digital Raptor X 150GB, in addition to high-capacity HDDs, such as Seagate Barracuda 1TB, which are also not really affordable. As a result, gamers will have to pay roughly $6000 only for critical components, such as two Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 4GB of memory, 4 graphics cards, one high-speed HDD and one high-capacity HDD. Given that monitor, case, power supply, optical drive, workmanship, various software and so on also do not come for free, Intel Skulltrail gaming stations will easily pass $10 000 milestone.



And to think you only need to use 300W for the CPUs. Maybe that's why QFX got a pass. And they were only using 250W.
October 13, 2007 3:35:06 AM

Baron, please show me the link were the new Extreme Xeons for the Skull Trail board have a 150W DTP?

Thanks
October 13, 2007 3:58:19 AM

pausert20 said:
Baron, please show me the link were the new Extreme Xeons for the Skull Trail board have a 150W DTP?

Thanks


Quote:
The new extreme chips from Intel will have thermal design power of 150W


Straight from xbit's article.
October 14, 2007 6:54:10 AM

Thanks Zornunod.

Since the processor that xBit Labs is talking about is a Xeon processor. I believe before the final Netburst processor was put to rest Intel had come out with the higher DTP of the 150W and since it is an Extreme (Unlocked) processor it kinda makes sense to give it the higher DTP.

I think it is a little funny but no one seems to think you can put any slower speed Xeon into the Skull Traill motherboard. You could be an 8 core beast that uses one of the 50W DTP if you wanted too. But if you wan the absolute bleeding edge then yes you pay for it.

This new QX9750 is supposed to have a 1600 FSB and unlocked multiplier and the higher TDP. This is the absolute top end Quad core processor for enthusiast that you can buy. I don't see why Intel can't charge more for it. Nothing can touch it from the competition and if they could then they could sell their version for a comparable sum.

It looks to me that Intel is defining a new high end for performance and of course price point. Since this processor will most likely not sell in any appreciable volume due to its cost I don't see what the issue is. Unless everyone is concerned that this is the start of Intel keeping prices high or not providing processors at cost levels that are competitive because they believe they have outrun their competition. ie(If AMD goes Bankrupt then you will only have $1000 processors to buy)

I think I need to stop rambling. Late for me.
October 14, 2007 7:58:56 AM

They are "regular" Xeon processors on a LGA775 socket, so no, there is no CPU choice.
October 14, 2007 9:35:49 PM

BaronMatrix said:
And to think you only need to use 300W for the CPUs. Maybe that's why QFX got a pass. And they were only using 250W.


Or maybe it was because they would have had their ass kicked by these Intel monster.

Mind you, they will be out of reach for more then 99.9% of the people out there, just like upcoming quad-SLI/Crossfire (at 4*700$=2800$, pretty much the same). The name of the game is "Own the high-end to sell in the low-end market". It's that simple!

I'll be happy next year with quad-45nm Core 2 cpu, since my P5B Deluxe will take it. With the money I'll save, I'll upgrade 4 time with better performances anyway by next year when NEHALEM will come out. That's, of course, if it perform as well as expected in the first place.

That's another discussion tough.
October 14, 2007 9:40:27 PM

Ycon said:
They are "regular" Xeon processors on a LGA775 socket, so no, there is no CPU choice.


You got it wrong bud! They are regular desktop quad-PENRYN on a Xeon socket 771. Supposedly this is because desktop version have different prefetch, to better suit desktop usage (including gaming), then the server ones. Does it really matter in the end? I doubt it except for fraction % point in benchmark run, but a difference nonetheless.
a c 99 à CPUs
October 14, 2007 10:45:19 PM

zornundo said:
Quote:
The new extreme chips from Intel will have thermal design power of 150W


Straight from xbit's article.


Ouch! That's a new record for Intel desktop chips as 130 W was the previous highest TDP, held by the Pentium D EEs and the Core 2 Quad Extreme versions. Either Intel is being conservative with their rating and assumes that most people will overclock the CPU or the Yorkfields aren't all that much better at scaling up the clock speed vs. heat production than the Kentsfields. I doubt the former as Intel has sold multiplier-unlocked chips ever since the Gallatin-based Pentium 4 Extreme Edition that battled the then-new FX-51. The latter sounds much more probable as 45 nm is young and the chip is both complex and high-clocked. TDPs ought to decrease over time as the process matures, but still, that's one hot CPU!
October 14, 2007 10:58:25 PM

This idea sucks and flops whether Intel or AMD do it. Software isn't keeping up. A quad-core is total overkill for consumers and even most pro-sumers.

These dual-socket "enthusiast" solutions are targeting a very, very small market and I predict it won't be popular or profitable.
October 14, 2007 11:07:34 PM

Ycon said:
They are "regular" Xeon processors on a LGA775 socket, so no, there is no CPU choice.


Ycon, I have seen a Skulltrail motherboard. They use a Xeon 771 LGA socket and not the Desktop 775 LGA Socket.
October 16, 2007 12:45:54 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
This idea sucks and flops whether Intel or AMD do it. Software isn't keeping up. A quad-core is total overkill for consumers and even most pro-sumers.

These dual-socket "enthusiast" solutions are targeting a very, very small market and I predict it won't be popular or profitable.


I totally agree that dual-quad-core is overboard for except extreme multitasker. But quad-coe is fast coming a good choice. Even Crysis should use quad-core to good extend. That is still left to check tough, but getting a quad-core right now isn't a bad idea at all I think.

My 0.02$ anyway!
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2007 1:59:08 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
This idea sucks and flops whether Intel or AMD do it. Software isn't keeping up. A quad-core is total overkill for consumers and even most pro-sumers.

These dual-socket "enthusiast" solutions are targeting a very, very small market and I predict it won't be popular or profitable.

Yeah, I gotta agree with you on this one. I just can't get jazzed about the "dual socket enthusiast platform" anymore. Dual socket platforms were fun and unique back in the Skt370 and Skt462 days. Dual P3's Coppermines at 800MHz was screaming fast at the time. One of my favorites was a dual AthlonMP 2400+ on a Tyan Tiger MPX; that was a machine and boy did I have fun with that!

Now that both Intel and AMD have dual and quad core procs, it really takes the fun out of SMP.

And, just to keep things interesting, Asus has demo'ed a dual Skt1207 FASN8 mobo made to run Phenoms.
!