Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 gets the chop

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 27, 2008 8:45:22 PM

"DigiTimes reports that Intel plans to phase out the vintage quad-core chip in Q1 2009 by issuing a product discontinuance notice."

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_plans_axe_core_2_quad_q6600_first_quarter_2009

A sad day for all indeed.

More about : q6600 chop

November 27, 2008 8:47:18 PM

Lame, forcing their hand to boost Q9 and i7 sales. This could potentially hurt them if Deneb delivers and fits right in between the Q6600 and i7 in price and performance. Thats unless Intel lowers the Q9550 down to $240~
November 27, 2008 9:49:26 PM

I assume they would have to lower prices on other quads...

Maybe this will be close to coinciding with Intels release of mainstream i7 based.
Related resources
a c 159 à CPUs
a b å Intel
November 27, 2008 10:02:49 PM

I know fry's is out of them. They're combo deal is the e8200 for $159 tomorrow.
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2008 10:13:17 PM

spathotan said:
Lame, forcing their hand to boost Q9 and i7 sales. This could potentially hurt them if Deneb delivers and fits right in between the Q6600 and i7 in price and performance. Thats unless Intel lowers the Q9550 down to $240~


More likely just a continued phase out of their 65nm components. The Q6600 is basically the last 65nm CPU available, and Intel is probably happy to ditch it in favor of the 45nm components. The 65nm fabs are probably going to be switched over to chipset manufacturing. Keep in mind that the Q8200 is roughly the equivalent of the 6600 in every way except possibly overclockability (I haven't seen a report either way with that chip), and the Q9300 and 9400 are also excellent chips that perform at or slightly above the 6600 level. The 9550 isn't the cheapest quad that Intel will have after the 6600 is ditched.
November 27, 2008 10:51:23 PM

the only reason for the ditching of the q6600 is probably the fact that even though this chip alone virtually stopped the entire range of phenoms in there tracks, it has also hurt the intel chip sails for the penryn.

what is more preferred with the standard computer builder\user, a chip that can O\C to around 3.6ghz @ aprice of say £150 sterling or a chip that can deliver another 400mhz (to 4ghz) with slightly less heat but another £100.

this is a large price premium to pay for a chip that is only 400mhz faster (this is the reason why i dont buy the higher clocked CPU's ie Extreme).

the q6600 was very popular for its time of release and stil is today, it probably will be up to its death in the market, but intel i believe has relized this and want to sell as many of the penryns as possible before they are killed off by the Core i7, but this is not possible with the q6600 still in the market.

i own the q6600 go and have to admit that i bought it over the penryn because of the O\Cing ability (running @ 3.5) for the price that its available for, i surely dont think i am the only one.

the only way to get the consumer to pull away from the q6600 (even afer its retirement) is to lower the remaining low end quads to a similar price, when this happens i may go penryn.
November 28, 2008 12:12:02 AM

yea killing it is about the only way to get people to stop buying them. what an attractive, affordable way to get into a quad core it is.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 12:43:43 AM

I fail to see how the Q9300 @ $240 or the Q8200 @ $180 isn't a valid replacement for the 6600. Both perform equal or slightly above the 6600, and both run cooler with less power. I would imagine they overclock quite well too, given the typical headroom on the 45nm CPUs.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 1:04:19 AM

Looks like Deneb for me then, unless the Q6600 stock hangs around for a while afterwards. I can't afford to get it at $300 right now.
November 28, 2008 1:19:41 AM

Because the Q9300 isnt as good of a buy as the Q6600 has been cjl. And I mentioned Q9550 because its the only Q9xxx quad worth buying right now.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 2:21:56 AM

I would argue that it is a decent deal, based on the fact that it's faster than the 6600 and I would guess that on a decent P45 board, it would overclock farther on average. The 8200 matches the 6600 in almost every case, and is about the same price.

I certainly wouldn't say that the 9550 is the only one worth buying right now - the 9300 is almost $100 cheaper than the 9550, and yet is still the 45nm process with good performance and overclockability. Basically, I think people are to attached to the 6600 when there are other options that are just as fast in a similar price range.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 2:28:36 AM

The Q8200 isn't a good buy since it's the same price as the Q9300 here :lol:  The problem with all these 45nm chips is they don't like it when you put 1.7V+ through them, so they're not much fun.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 2:50:44 AM

So?

They go higher on lower volts, so they don't need 1.7v. I have a friend with a Q9550 that is at 3.82GHz @1.275V, rock solid. I've never seen a 6600 even come close to that kind of overclocking.
November 28, 2008 2:58:14 AM

Off newegg pricing...

Q6600 is 70mhz fast at stock, twice the cache and higher multiplier than the Q8200... and if you buy the OEM its $2 cheaper...

Q9300 is 100mhz faster at , but has less cache and ~$60 more than Q6600...

Really if you want a better intel quad than Q6600 you have to go with the Q9550 which has more cache close to the same multiplier and 430mhz higher clocked at stock. A lower TDP with instruction enhancements.

BUT at ~$130 more i could almost by 2 Q6600's for the price of 1 Q9550. It was the only way intel was going to stop people buying the things was to can them.

Additionally with the Q9550 at ~$320 its also more expensive than a superior i7 920 (albeit the extra premium for boards and RAM)



EDIT: Just looked Q9550 doesnt have lower TDP than Q6600 they are the same...

I would like to see the new quads that are supposed to be released with 45w TDP? supposedly Q9xxx S?
November 28, 2008 3:24:16 AM

chookman said:
"DigiTimes reports that Intel plans to phase out the vintage quad-core chip in Q1 2009 by issuing a product discontinuance notice."

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_plans_axe_core_2_quad_q6600_first_quarter_2009

A sad day for all indeed.



The Q6600 is not a Quad Core Processor. It is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module:


"The question still lingers “but this isn’t a true quad core CPU right?”, and as with the QX6700 the Q6600 is basically two Core 2 Duo processors built into a single multi chip module."

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/index.php

November 28, 2008 3:37:22 AM

so are all intel quads except the i7!
November 28, 2008 3:46:29 AM

Enigma.....ALL Intel quads are that way except the i7.........

Also, chookman NAILED my point on the "Q9550 is the only one worth buying" thing.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 4:47:33 AM

cjl said:
So?

They go higher on lower volts, so they don't need 1.7v. I have a friend with a Q9550 that is at 3.82GHz @1.275V, rock solid. I've never seen a 6600 even come close to that kind of overclocking.

It takes the fun out of overclocking when you're not on the brink of burning up the chip ;) 

enigma067 said:
The Q6600 is not a Quad Core Processor. It is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module:


"The question still lingers “but this isn’t a true quad core CPU right?”, and as with the QX6700 the Q6600 is basically two Core 2 Duo processors built into a single multi chip module."

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/index.php


So AMD's real quad core gets beaten by a fake? That's even worse. Your fanboyism isn't helping AMD at all this time.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 4:57:59 AM

chookman said:
Off newegg pricing...

Q6600 is 70mhz fast at stock, twice the cache and higher multiplier than the Q8200... and if you buy the OEM its $2 cheaper...

Q9300 is 100mhz faster at , but has less cache and ~$60 more than Q6600...

Really if you want a better intel quad than Q6600 you have to go with the Q9550 which has more cache close to the same multiplier and 430mhz higher clocked at stock. A lower TDP with instruction enhancements.

BUT at ~$130 more i could almost by 2 Q6600's for the price of 1 Q9550. It was the only way intel was going to stop people buying the things was to can them.

Additionally with the Q9550 at ~$320 its also more expensive than a superior i7 920 (albeit the extra premium for boards and RAM)



EDIT: Just looked Q9550 doesnt have lower TDP than Q6600 they are the same...

I would like to see the new quads that are supposed to be released with 45w TDP? supposedly Q9xxx S?


By specs alone, you're right. Looking at benchmarks though, the 9300 appears to easily match the 6600, and the lower quantity of cache appears to be a minor handicap (if it is even a handicap at all). See here for example.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 5:56:14 AM



QUAD CORE 6600 RIP...

This chip was an absolute legend in its own right... I would go far enough to say its proberly the best chip Intel have produced... ( well for the money anyway )...
November 28, 2008 6:12:52 AM

i bet the Q6600 is probably the most popular quad core processor ever sold in the world so far... 8800GT being the most popular gfx chip?
November 28, 2008 4:12:03 PM

Yea the Q6600 Retail has over 2500+ reviews on Newegg, OEM has over 500. And that's JUST Newegg, not to mention all the people that dont submit reviews. As far as most popular video card goes there is no telling, I wouldnt say 8800GT because ALOT of people already owned 8800GTS/X by time the GT was released. Maybe 7600GT?
November 28, 2008 5:08:54 PM

RIP Q6600, Im gona miss you :( 
November 28, 2008 5:19:59 PM

enigma067 said:
The Q6600 is not a Quad Core Processor. It is comprised of two dual cores placed side-by-side making it a Multi Chip Module:


"The question still lingers “but this isn’t a true quad core CPU right?”, and as with the QX6700 the Q6600 is basically two Core 2 Duo processors built into a single multi chip module."

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Q6600/index.php


Four cores:check
One package: check

Its a quad core, STFU.
a b à CPUs
November 28, 2008 5:44:44 PM

V3NOM said:
so are all intel quads except the i7!



By the time every one stops bitching we will be getting a hexacore with hyperthreading...


November 28, 2008 5:47:16 PM

So if the 6600 is gonna go, whats the next best successor to date or do we wait for I7 to come out and see how things pan out.
November 28, 2008 6:20:14 PM

B-Unit said:
Four cores:check
One package: check

Its a quad core, STFU.



Ahhh B-Unit always presenting the facts lol

But as cjl put it the Q9300 is close, and i would have to say when they axe the Q6600 and/or release some more CPU's the Q9300 should drop in price leaving it to be the successor.
!