Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

New low-end quad-core Q8xxx CPUs from Intel

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Quad Core
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
June 15, 2008 6:01:45 AM

The rumors have it that Intel is launching the Q8xxx series of quad-core CPUs:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37945/139/

Anticipated launch price is $203:

http://www.slashgear.com/intel-core-2-quad-q8000-entry-level-cpu-rumored-1312054.php

This should put them in competition with AMD triple-core chips.

With Nehalem on the higher end, Q9 in mainstream, and Q8 on the lower end, Intel is poised to market their quad-core CPUs to the broad range of market demands and applications.

More about : low end quad core q8xxx cpus intel

June 15, 2008 6:52:19 AM

So from the looks of it, Intel is really making an effort to push quad core into the mainstream.

I wonder if that's a good move though.
June 15, 2008 7:11:12 AM

Why not?
It looks like Intel is trying to push 4 then 8 then 16 etc. cores into the market, and these programmers better get on the ball.

Ray-tracing anyone?

Not to mention putting the final nail in AMD's coffin. I hope they lighten up on AMD though, I do think that is a mistake.
Related resources
June 15, 2008 7:24:50 AM

Actually I don't think its a good idea. Most consumers don't need quad core to run daily applications. They would prefer to maintain a relatively decent performance, but at a massive low price (EeePC is a very good example of this).

As a result, I think Intel should start to focus on utilizing smaller process technology and high performance circuitry in building small form factor C2D processors.
June 15, 2008 7:33:34 AM

Zorg said:
Why not?
It looks like Intel is trying to push 4 then 8 then 16 etc. cores into the market, and these programmers better get on the ball.

Ray-tracing anyone?

Not to mention putting the final nail in AMD's coffin. I hope they lighten up on AMD though, I do think that is a mistake.

I have faith that they can pull through =P. I am an optimist, and fairly hardcore AMD fanboy (not thunderman hardcore, lol AMD4LIFE)
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 7:41:46 AM

Actually I think it is overall quite positive.

This brings solid performance to the triple and quad core offerings out there and will help force game and app developers to make use of the additional cores for our benefit.

I think that many (not most because of the low end lappy market I would imagine?) new machines being sold over the last 18 months are now dual core ... but there are still tons of single core machines around ... most of the market.

With both Intel and AMD pushing 3 and 4 core machines it is up to the software designers to catch up.

Game development in particular is hampered because the designers still want to ensure low end PC owners can run their games.

There are not many that are yet taking a punt putting out games like Crysis and Oblivion ... very demanding on hardware.

We are actually being held back by Joe Public.

Kill all single core PC's ... that's a good start.

This forces designers to maximise 2 core PC's at least.

I'd liketo see game houses make a few new games that are quad core or go away.

I am sure they are frustrated too.

Investing in design that has to cater for the lowest common denomenator is just about making sureyou can get your investment capital back and start showing a profit.

With quite a few games bombing out over the years it can be a risky business.

Duke Nukem Forever will likely only run on an octalcore machine ... lol.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 7:54:21 AM

I'm gonna take this as positive news even though AMD's Phenom sales will be servely hurt...

Remember how dual-core was considered high end? $1000 dollar Athlon X2s?

The faster a CPU guy cuts down prices the faster more cores become mainstream ie. I can afford them...

This is a great move as it will most likely AMD shall lower their prices and cause a ripple effect in the market...
June 15, 2008 7:56:28 AM

yomamafor1 said:
As a result, I think Intel should start to focus on utilizing smaller process technology and high performance circuitry in building small form factor C2D processors.
They are doing that as well. They are a big company you know.
June 15, 2008 8:12:06 AM

I don't see this being much cheaper than the current low price leader q6600. I assume these new 8xxx quads will be 45nm? I supposed that will get a few people to buy over a q6600, but honestly, the decreased L2 cache and the mighty high stock fsb coupled with a low multiplier make this new 8xxx quad not an overclocker's choice.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 8:27:26 AM

Still it will push prices down and that's all I care about (Wow that makes me sound shallow)
June 15, 2008 8:29:02 AM

i still want a Q9...

i don't get it, for those specs, why not buying a cheaper Q6600 with 2.4ghz and 8mb cache. does the fsb make such a diffrence? 4 mb cache seems so low!
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 8:45:01 AM

Sure but it may end up like a non-OC'able Pentium Dual-Core...
June 15, 2008 9:07:06 AM

joefriday said:
I don't see this being much cheaper than the current low price leader q6600. I assume these new 8xxx quads will be 45nm? I supposed that will get a few people to buy over a q6600, but honestly, the decreased L2 cache and the mighty high stock fsb coupled with a low multiplier make this new 8xxx quad not an overclocker's choice.
I was thinking the same thing. I imagine Q6600s will become scarce, in the not too distant future, then their price will rise to where they aren't so attractive. Ultimately they won't be available at all.
June 15, 2008 9:49:36 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Actually I don't think its a good idea. Most consumers don't need quad core to run daily applications. They would prefer to maintain a relatively decent performance, but at a massive low price (EeePC is a very good example of this).

As a result, I think Intel should start to focus on utilizing smaller process technology and high performance circuitry in building small form factor C2D processors.


The market segment for decent performance and low power is covered by Atom family of processors:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-cpu,1947.html

Unlike ARMs, Atom CPUs have x86 IS making them easily compatible with a large amount of existing software. You can take a mini-ITX MB like this:

http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Motherboards.html

and assemble a small computer with decent performance like this:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20080421175456_Asustek_Readies_Intel_Atom_Based_Eee_PC_for_Mid_Year_Launch.html

It is expected that these computers will evolve in the direction of the decreasing form-factor, blending into the emerging market of MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices).
a c 160 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 15, 2008 10:27:50 AM

It's amazing though that neither Intel or Amd can reduce power consumption of current quads, especially .45nm. I went from a celeron 430 to e4300 (pin modded at 1066) and found the performance more than adequate. I would spend the extra money on the quad if the power consumption were lower. Amd promised the 9100e at 65 watts, but I haven't seen one yet.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 10:40:36 AM

I don't really see the point of a faster CPU in my machine... I've tried out my brother's OC'd Qx9650. Sure its abit faster... but not enough so that I'm willing to upgrade... Besides the normal application I use (itunes, firefox and painter) won't receive much benefit.

Still...
June 15, 2008 4:55:44 PM

It's all about ecoolness, for lack of ability to use the standard word.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 5:15:42 PM

amdfangirl said:
I don't really see the point of a faster CPU in my machine... I've tried out my brother's OC'd Qx9650. Sure its abit faster... but not enough so that I'm willing to upgrade... Besides the normal application I use (itunes, firefox and painter) won't receive much benefit.

Still...


You just said it, for what YOU use...try encoding to MPEG2 on your brothers machine vs your machine or h.264, or try rendering or something that has hardcore lighting and a lot of light sources and you'll see a huge difference.

For just Ituning and painter we could still be running thunderbird 1.4s and we'd be more than covered...

I bet you don't use Vista yet...that'd make you want a faster cpu and especially harddrive.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 5:20:33 PM

Reynod said:
Actually I think it is overall quite positive.

This brings solid performance to the triple and quad core offerings out there and will help force game and app developers to make use of the additional cores for our benefit.

I think that many (not most because of the low end lappy market I would imagine?) new machines being sold over the last 18 months are now dual core ... but there are still tons of single core machines around ... most of the market.

With both Intel and AMD pushing 3 and 4 core machines it is up to the software designers to catch up.

Game development in particular is hampered because the designers still want to ensure low end PC owners can run their games.

There are not many that are yet taking a punt putting out games like Crysis and Oblivion ... very demanding on hardware.

We are actually being held back by Joe Public.

Kill all single core PC's ... that's a good start.

This forces designers to maximise 2 core PC's at least.

I'd liketo see game houses make a few new games that are quad core or go away.

I am sure they are frustrated too.

Investing in design that has to cater for the lowest common denomenator is just about making sureyou can get your investment capital back and start showing a profit.

With quite a few games bombing out over the years it can be a risky business.

Duke Nukem Forever will likely only run on an octalcore machine ... lol.


By the time duke nukem forever is released, we'll have optical computers and hover cars and octa core will be equivalent to EGA...

Good point, we also need to kill off all floppy drives and also ps/2 ports, we shouldn't need floppies for raid drivers for god's sake, windows shoulda been smart enough in 2003 to check a cd and not a floppy !
and with 20 gig installs, we should kill off 80 gig hard drives too, and IDE everything !

June 15, 2008 5:37:40 PM

The more interesting would be the 5000 series replacing the 2000 series..up 2MB from 1MB cache, but still 800mhz FSB...Good CPU for general computing but still dual-core & 45nm.

I prefer Intel spend time on the low power CPU (dual & maybe quad core ATOM)...Mini ITX 2.0 boards..Save energy by using those netpc but still have enough power to play 720p video..
June 15, 2008 5:55:23 PM

royalcrown said:
You just said it, for what YOU use...try encoding to MPEG2 on your brothers machine vs your machine or h.264, or try rendering or something that has hardcore lighting and a lot of light sources and you'll see a huge difference.

For just Ituning and painter we could still be running thunderbird 1.4s and we'd be more than covered...

I bet you don't use Vista yet...that'd make you want a faster cpu and especially harddrive.
Yeah, but what about epe... uh... er... ecoolness? :lol: 
a c 213 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 15, 2008 6:07:55 PM

This is just one other area Intel is going to. There will also be low end Nehalems that are dual cores but will aso have the GPU in package. Those will be for people like AMDFANGirl who want a low power chip that does what she needs seeing as she doesn't seem to game much.

I was looking at the roadmap and it looks like the Q6600 will be around pretty much until Nehalem is mainstream seeing as it is probably Intels best selling chip. I doubt the Q8xxxs will be able to overtake its current enthusiast position unless they can OC like the Q6600 can.

I said it before and its still true. Things are getting interesting and once Nehalem hits it will get even more interesting.
June 15, 2008 6:28:28 PM

Zorg said:
I was thinking the same thing. I imagine Q6600s will become scarce, in the not too distant future, then their price will rise to where they aren't so attractive. Ultimately they won't be available at all.

It's true. I keep telling myself that this won't happen, but I know better than that. It's a shame really. For ~$200, you can get top of the line performance. Once they're gone from retail, Ebay will be the only place to find them, and I can imagine they'll hold their value for quite a long time.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 6:28:38 PM

No point in putting multiple 4+ cores unless the software supports multi threading. Currently Photoshop, SolidWorks,Inventor,etc, and other CAD, photo/video editing software supports multi threading.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 6:29:32 PM

amdfangirl said:
Sure but it may end up like a non-OC'able Pentium Dual-Core...

Check my sig. :kaola: 







Btw, fangirl, do you use PicLens?
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 6:32:38 PM

amdfangirl said:

This is a great move as it will most likely AMD shall lower their prices and cause a ripple effect in the market...

Well, AMD can go only so low with out loosing profit. Last time I checked Wall St. said AMD was loosing profit.
June 15, 2008 6:54:09 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Btw, fangirl, do you use PicLens?
PicLens rules.
June 15, 2008 7:00:44 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Well, AMD can go only so low with out loosing profit. Last time I checked Wall St. said AMD was loosing profit.
SAVE AMD!

Everyone buy AMD to help them out. I would, but I already have a Q6600 that I'm planning on keeping until the 8 core Nehalem with HT and the IMC come down in price. I would help if I could though, so please get on it.

Thank you for your collective assistance in this dire matter.

Zorg
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2008 7:21:14 PM

I'll help AMD if their next core doesen't sux0rz....like ther PHE 4, I mean PHE-NOM-inal failure
June 15, 2008 7:28:52 PM

That's just mean talk and serves no useful purpose. :lol: 
June 15, 2008 7:29:55 PM

It would be interesting to see quad core Q8000, they should have made it L2 cache 10mb instead of 4mb.
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2008 5:42:58 AM

jimmysmitty said:
This is just one other area Intel is going to. There will also be low end Nehalems that are dual cores but will aso have the GPU in package. Those will be for people like AMDFANGirl who want a low power chip that does what she needs seeing as she doesn't seem to game much.

I was looking at the roadmap and it looks like the Q6600 will be around pretty much until Nehalem is mainstream seeing as it is probably Intels best selling chip. I doubt the Q8xxxs will be able to overtake its current enthusiast position unless they can OC like the Q6600 can.

I said it before and its still true. Things are getting interesting and once Nehalem hits it will get even more interesting.


It's sad really that I can't run the processor at stock anymore :(  (I guess it got used to 0.9v)



I meant a processor in a similar price point without taking OC'ing into account...
a b à CPUs
June 18, 2008 6:17:20 PM

Zorg said:

Thank you for your collective assistance in this dire matter.

Zorg

We are NOT Borg.
a b à CPUs
June 18, 2008 6:20:10 PM

Quote:

I meant a processor in a similar price point without taking OC'ing into account..

You see, the problem is AMD can't sell to large OEMs many CPUs because their production rate is lower than Intel. Also Intel can sell E2x00 CPUs for like $50 in units on 1k.
June 18, 2008 6:33:25 PM

shadowthor said:
It would be interesting to see quad core Q8000, they should have made it L2 cache 10mb instead of 4mb.


That would kinda ruin the 'entry level' aspect of it would it not?
a b à CPUs
June 19, 2008 5:57:50 AM

still a higher multiplier and a lower FSB would have been better for OC'ing...
June 19, 2008 8:04:10 AM

Shadow703793 said:
Quote:

I meant a processor in a similar price point without taking OC'ing into account..

You see, the problem is AMD can't sell to large OEMs many CPUs because their production rate is lower than Intel. Also Intel can sell E2x00 CPUs for like $50 in units on 1k.

I've heard rumours that AMD's ASP in 07 was $60/chip. That's not for thier cheap model, that's for everything.
As to thier capacity, I dont know because I dont know what's happening with fab30/38. When (and if) it's back on line, AMD's capacity will be ~ 60% of the market.
In fact, they do sell to most of the OEMs at this point.
They just dont sell very many, because Intel can deliver a better product at many price points.
Fab 38 should also be 45nm, so that should help AMD handle the storm of lower pricing.
June 19, 2008 1:06:45 PM

endyen said:
I've heard rumours that AMD's ASP in 07 was $60/chip. That's not for thier cheap model, that's for everything.
As to thier capacity, I dont know because I dont know what's happening with fab30/38. When (and if) it's back on line, AMD's capacity will be ~ 60% of the market.
In fact, they do sell to most of the OEMs at this point.
They just dont sell very many, because Intel can deliver a better product at many price points.
Fab 38 should also be 45nm, so that should help AMD handle the storm of lower pricing.


Grasping at staws again eh, why not do what Baron did and dissapear till AMD is on top?

Word, Playa.
June 19, 2008 1:20:05 PM

I guess I could sell my Q6600 to AMD for cheap so they could re-sell it for a profit... :oops: 
June 19, 2008 6:48:44 PM

amdfangirl said:
still a higher multiplier and a lower FSB would have been better for OC'ing...


What is the multiplier? I didn't see it listed anywhere.
June 19, 2008 8:33:06 PM

^
Simple math:
1333.333/4= 333.3
2333MHz/333fsb= 7.0x multiplier. The same multiplier the e6300 had.
June 19, 2008 11:26:03 PM

Do you think the Q8200 will be faster than E8400 ???
June 20, 2008 5:45:31 AM

spud said:
Grasping at staws again eh, why not do what Baron did and dissapear till AMD is on top?

Word, Playa.

You should know me better than that by now. I'm a bigger fan of accuracy than of AMD.
How is it that you got unbanned anyhow? Did they let you keep all your post count from all your names?
Want to know a big secret? I'm glad you're around. Maybe it's cause I know you are a good Alberta boy, and I'm from B.C.
Maybe because I know you are pretty bright. Maybe, it's because I know you've fought so hard to get where you are.
I hope the boom out there has been good to you.
June 20, 2008 12:54:39 PM

endyen said:
You should know me better than that by now. I'm a bigger fan of accuracy than of AMD.
How is it that you got unbanned anyhow? Did they let you keep all your post count from all your names?
Want to know a big secret? I'm glad you're around. Maybe it's cause I know you are a good Alberta boy, and I'm from B.C.
Maybe because I know you are pretty bright. Maybe, it's because I know you've fought so hard to get where you are.
I hope the boom out there has been good to you.


Ya I know I try to keep a low key on a lot of the subject matter here now less political jazz since now all my theories from 4 years ago are coming into fruition :/ .

When Omid started running THG he got Fredi to unban me it's been a while since that happened though. Otherwise I just hang out here for the latest tech jazz, try to keep out of the Intel vs. AMD crap but sometimes I can’t resist, since I tend to be a **** disturber.

Ya the energy boom out here is good if I wasn’t in the trades I would be making a considerable amount more but the oil industry is a different world they think they have it all down, buy what they want type deal, it's more American type buying (credit) here now, so I am just waiting for oil to plummet and these guys to get a reality check, they might drive consumer spending but they are setting poor examples for their children and we don’t need anymore gluttonous people up here the American's are starting to finally realize its a poor financial strategy.

But I got to admit though not many posters are glad I am around I appreciate the comment though. :love: 

Word, Playa.