Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will Nehalem bring crazy Price Drops in current Intel Quads?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which is the best choice?

Total: 22 votes (4 blank votes)

  • Q9550 now
  • 23 %
  • Q9550 after Nehalem price drops (I hope)
  • 78 %
October 23, 2008 9:34:49 PM

Making a new build with e8400 (for gaming, photoshop, 3d, modeling, some video also) and I instead decided to go witha quad. Q9550 look like the best, but Q6600 will OC 1333fsb and 3ghz on P45 with after market cooler, right? So it came down to Q9550 or Q6600. I don't care about Nehalem, but should I wait for price drops in current quads when Nehalem comes out or what?


Moderator Edit - No need for all the Caps in thread titles - so stop it guys!
October 23, 2008 9:35:36 PM

I sure hope so, I'd like a Q9xxx at some point.
October 23, 2008 9:51:45 PM

yes you will see price drop but I doubt it'll be crazy.

Q6600 my guess will be around $160 Q9xxx would probably be in the range of $200-$250. I heard when Core i7 comes out those will be freakish expensive. Therefore wouldn't make sense to have a huge price price on the older gen, else everyone will rush to buy the insanely cheap cpu and no market for the i7.
Related resources
October 23, 2008 9:55:49 PM

Man that means Ill have to wait till spring, but w/e i can do it got other thing to keep me busy with
October 23, 2008 9:57:10 PM

Unless I got with a cheap E8400 for now and get a Q9550 later right? But I'd have to build a whole nother system for that spare e8400... I guess Ill ust wait =(
October 23, 2008 10:42:37 PM

When you get a 2.66 GHz Nehalem for sub 300$, why go for a Q9xxx for 250+$ ?
October 23, 2008 10:43:49 PM

As in Wikipedia:
In the Super PI 1M test, a Core i7 920 running at 2.66 Ghz finished the test in 15.36 seconds, while a QX9770 (3.2 Ghz) did the test in 14.42 seconds.
October 23, 2008 10:59:45 PM

Quote:
When you get a 2.66 GHz Nehalem for sub 300$, why go for a Q9xxx for 250+$ ?


don't forget he'll have to buy a new MB and DDR3 memory if he goes i7
October 23, 2008 11:13:24 PM

i7 seems like it will be a lot like the 939 to AM2 switch. They'll probably say they're cutting back on 775 processor production, which will drive up price and demand at the same time for no justifiable reason. I remember AMD had said they weren't making anymore 939 processors despite newegg being able to sell out and restock a good dozen times by a year later. Though things probably wont be quite as bad with Nehalem. It will at least provide some clock for clock advantage, AM2 was actually slower than equivalent 939 setups.
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2008 11:17:43 PM

Seeing as the Q9550 is just above $300, I would expect this chip to fall to just under $300. (anywhere from $250 to $300, but probably like $280 for a 10%ish price drop.) The Q9550 is a great chip, and will probably out perform the lowest i7 for desktop users. (or possibly just tie.) I don't think the Q6600 will see much lower prices, its already rather cheap.

The i7 will be ~$300, the X58 will be another $250+, while the tri pack of DDR3 will be another $80ish. You'll be looking at ~$600+ just for those three things. If I am right, you won't be saving much by waiting. Because the 9550 performs so well, I don't think you'll see much in the line of price dropping. The 8200 and 9300 will probably see a bigger overall price drop. If you have the money now and need/want a new computer, might as well do it now.
October 23, 2008 11:21:36 PM

The title of this topic has been edited by Jake_Barnes

Moderator Edit - No need for all the Caps in thread titles - so stop it guys!
October 24, 2008 2:17:47 AM

OK I will sadly probably wait till summer/spring and then build my PC =(
October 24, 2008 2:41:17 AM

What's wrong with e8400 if you are a gamer? There needs to be games that can take advantage of quad cores!
October 24, 2008 3:18:19 AM

I wouldnt be suprised if the Q6600 dissapears after i7 launches.

As far as the topic goes, I say wait for price cuts.
October 24, 2008 3:43:08 AM

Me I'll just wait and see. Got me a good system right now and it might just wait until SP1 of Windows 7 before I really need to upgrade.
October 24, 2008 5:31:42 AM

spathotan said:
I wouldnt be suprised if the Q6600 dissapears after i7 launches.

As far as the topic goes, I say wait for price cuts.


Actually the Q6600 is reaching its EOL. Research on here in the last week about new Intel CPU's. I'm pretty sure it mentions EOL on a few cpus...e6750, 6850, 6700 and 660 and i think a few others.
October 24, 2008 5:41:40 AM

yea i don't think a big price drop will happen. i agree with 474 on maybe a 10% price drop but nothing too drastic.

the average pc consumer isn't rich enough to go straight from one gen. to the next when they already have a viable computer. imo, if you do want to get an i7, go with a E8400 right now as a pitstop. wait for the first few waves of i7 to come out so all the bugs and stability issues to be fixed.

not to mention, by the time you want to upgrade from your E8400, a new stepping might be available. same goes with the possible drop prices of DDR3, new mobo, etc.
October 24, 2008 6:25:02 AM

I think that if you want the Q9550, you should just go ahead and get it now. Right now the difference is $155 (319 - 164) on NewEgg. If you pay the $164 now and wait to get the Q9550 at say $280 later, you will save only $39 on the Q9550. But you will still have spent $164 on the E8400, and $164 + $280 = $444 spent on both. S0, even if you could sell your used E8400 for $100 later, you are still out $344. So in the end, waiting costs you more than the current $319 price.
October 24, 2008 2:15:26 PM

I doubt that the Q9550 will drop in price more than 10-30$ in the next month. Maybe we'll get to see another decrease after christmas but Intel said they were already happy with their aggressive pricing.
Some numbers to compare (from pricewatch, for non-extreme quad core)
type speed cost (CAD$) mhz/$
q6600 2400 177 13.56
q6700 2660 213.52 12.46
q6800 2930 901 3.25
q8200 2330 196.88 11.83
q9300 2500 237.5 10.53
q9400 2660 269 9.89
q9450 2660 327.99 8.11
q9550 2830 312 9.07
q9650 3000 537.91 5.58

So you see that you get extremely good value on q6600, q6700, q8200 and q9300. Those are already beating AMD's offer in the budget-minded section and the enthusiasts are also very satisfied with the q9550. The top performance chips often stay at a very high price (all the QX9xxx) because there is such a small demand for them (and those demanding powerful chips often have a deep pocket).
Most likely you'll see Q6xxx chips getting phased out, Q9xxx chips taking over that coveted budget market and i7 chips filling in the mid/upper market with similarly priced chips. Remember, phasing out a technology means that it gets more expensive to produce...demand and offer!

TLDR conclusion:
Don't expect much more than 10% rebate on medium priced chips and MAYBE 10% on higher priced chips.
October 24, 2008 7:13:59 PM

OK Im thinking about getting Q9550 in about a month, How good of an OCer is it?
October 24, 2008 7:38:53 PM

Oh n if I got a Q6600 could I get it to maybe 1600mhz fsb (so it will be on par with dual channel 800mhz ram) or at least 1333? And is at least 3ghz possible? Could u guys recommend a good cpu cooler? Also is it harder to OC quads then duals?
October 24, 2008 10:04:21 PM

3ghz on a Q6600 is a walk in the part for even the most pathetic motherboards basically. 3.6ghz is easy as well as long as you can keep temps under control.
October 24, 2008 10:22:46 PM

what about the fsb tho? I want a 1:1 ration of fsb to dual channel ddr2 800mhz
October 24, 2008 10:29:09 PM

Thats 3.2ghz then for the Q6600. Also easy. I have mine running at 3.2ghz for the 1:1 ratio. Also because I have temperature issues. Its running 100% stable at 3.2ghz with the voltage 1 step below the proc's VID.
October 24, 2008 10:54:19 PM

OK so:
Q6600 at 3.2ghz is easy w/ a good after market cooler
at 3.2ghz it will automatically have a 1:1 ratio in cpu clock : dual channel 800
(i have never OC'd b4 and this is my 1st build)

So at 3.2ghz it will pretty much run at a stock e8400 speed for non-quad apps, right?
and with that 1:1 ratio, the accessing the RAM takes the same amount of time as accesing the cache?

now can u recommend me a good after market cooler
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2008 11:33:46 PM

Quote:
Q6600 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 at 3.2ghz is easy w/ a good after market cooler


Actually, I think even the stock cooler is good enough for this. You'd need something better if you were going to leave the multiplier at 9. 3.2GHz is a 400MHz actual FSB with the multiplier dropped down to 8.

Quote:
So at 3.2ghz it will pretty much run at a stock e8400 speed for non-quad apps, right?


Non quad apps? It should run as good as the 8400, or even better seeing as you have 2 extra cores.

Quote:
and with that 1:1 ratio, the accessing the RAM takes the same amount of time as accesing the cache?


Huh? No, the access time will still be longer then the L2 cache. There is no ram that I know of (Zram maybe...) that can access as fast as L2. There is a reason why there is L2 cache on chip. With the 1:1 ratio, you are simply running the RAM in sync with the FSB. This way neither the RAM nor the FSB is waiting when a memory request happens.
October 25, 2008 12:53:51 AM

4745454b said:
Actually, I think even the stock cooler is good enough for this. You'd need something better if you were going to leave the multiplier at 9. 3.2GHz is a 400MHz actual FSB with the multiplier dropped down to 8.


Can someone further explain this to me?
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2008 1:13:40 AM

With a FSB @ 400 (synchronous for DDR2-800), the CPU will run at 3.2GHz on an 8x multiplier (down from the stock 9x), and 3.6GHz on a 9x multiplier.
October 25, 2008 1:18:33 AM

FSB 400 is basically like 1600 right?
Does running 8x making more stable/cooler than running it 9x?
October 25, 2008 2:25:12 AM

cjl is right, sorry I forgot to mention lowering the multi down to 8.

Running the multi lower than the stock has no benefits. I think ive seen a few instances where some motherboards dont like running the chip at a multi lower than the stock. 400x8 = 3.2ghz, set RAM to 800mhz for 1:1.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2008 3:02:22 PM

Not every Q6600 is stable at 3.6GHz. Remember thats 1.2GHz (50%) improvement over stock. Some can be stable, but not all. By dropping the multi down to 8, you are running at only 3.2GHz, adding a mere 600MHz. Running at 3.6 is better/faster, and by all means do it if you can. If you can't, settle for 3.2 and don't worry about it.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2008 4:00:12 PM

Regarding the original question I think there will be some price drops but remember Intel will have to clear 65nm stock first.

Since they have a lot of production that might take time - especially with the economy slowing.

I'd imagine the newer 45nm quads will drop slightly but the prices will probably just get more compresed with the i7 stock fitting into the higher end of the scheme.

If they pushed the price of quads much lower it would seriously interfere with the dual core prices too - which are the bulk of their market ... the lower end.

So I predict the gaps between sucessive cpu's will simply get compressed.

This will make it even harder for AMD.

It will also create some confusion i nthe market.

Confusion is bad from a sales perspective so Intel might simply put one or two i7 processors up first.

Does that sound reasonable assumption of do others think they will implement the entire line at once?

October 25, 2008 11:07:40 PM

^ Yeah, I'd agree we won't see massive price drops. Nothing more than the scheduled quarterly cuts by Intel anyway, which probably means the Q9650 drops to $316 and the Q9550 becomes EOL or is 'castrated' into a Q9500 and put into the $266 price slot, the same thing happened with the Q9450 -> Q9400 transition.

I think there will be some 'overlap' in the price/performance curve between Core 2 and i7 chips. For example, I'd expect the $284 i920 to provide better price/performance than a similarly priced C2Q, but the platform also costs more for i7.
October 26, 2008 10:40:09 AM

Well, I went to Microcenter and bought a Q6600 for $169, P182 for $99 and 750tx for $135 ($89 after rebate), I;m gonna buy the rest from newegg. I went Q6600 for its OCability. Thanks guys for all the feedback.
October 28, 2008 2:09:06 PM

First price indications are available in the local shop...
Pricewise order: Q6600 < I7 920 < Q9550 < I7 940 < QX6850 < I7 966
also 2 gigabyte mobos are available: X58 UD5 @280 euro and X58 extreme @338 euro... It is interesting to note that UD5 is just 10 euro more expensive than X48-DQ6

so I guess this will give some real-life price levels indication. ;) 
October 29, 2008 3:08:09 PM

epsilon84 said:
^ Yeah, I'd agree we won't see massive price drops. Nothing more than the scheduled quarterly cuts by Intel anyway, which probably means the Q9650 drops to $316 and the Q9550 becomes EOL or is 'castrated' into a Q9500 and put into the $266 price slot, the same thing happened with the Q9450 -> Q9400 transition.

I think there will be some 'overlap' in the price/performance curve between Core 2 and i7 chips. For example, I'd expect the $284 i920 to provide better price/performance than a similarly priced C2Q, but the platform also costs more for i7.


Why would Intel drop the price of the Q9650 by $200?! It's still going to be the best Core 2 Quad and if they do, I'm going to have to grab one of those. Seriously though, what's the likelihood of that happening? It just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Intel has the market share and better product in that price segment.

I've read about the E7400 on Fudzilla and Techreport. It was supposedly launched on Oct. 19th, but it hasn't been added as a product on newegg.com yet. What's the deal with that?
!