Intel Cuts Prices of Core 2 Duo, Quad Chips
Late last month rumors did the rounds about Intel cutting processor prices, with the first round slated to occur on April 19. Good news folks, the rumors were true!
Intel this week confirmed suspected price cuts of several Core 2 Quad CPUs. The company also cut prices on a few of its Core 2 Duos. Price cuts aside, last month's rumors also fingered April 19 as the release date for the launch of the Core 2 Quad Q8400 (95W) and the Core 2 Quad Q8400S (65W), both clocked to 2.66 GHz and priced at $183 and $245, respectively. Also true.
Given that these rumors were true, it's safe to assume that the same reports were correct in saying Intel would launch more new processors at the end of May, including Celeron and Pentium Dual-Core parts, the Core 2 Duo E7600 and two new Core i7s: the 3.06 GHz 950 and the 3.33 GHz 975, priced at $562 and $999, respectively. We'll keep you posted on that one. Further price cuts are also scheduled for around this time in July.
Check out the April price cuts below:
| CPU | Old Price | New Price | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 19 | |||
Core 2 Quad Q8400 (2.66 GHz) | N/A | $183 | N/A |
Core 2 Quad Q8400S (2.66 GHz) | N/A | $245 | N/A |
Core 2 Quad Q9300 | $266 | $213 | 19.92% |
Core 2 Quad Q9550S | $369 | $320 | 13.28% |
Core 2 Quad Q9400S | $320 | $277 | 13.44% |
Core 2 Quad Q8200S | $245 | $213 | 13.0% |
| Core 2 Duo SP9400 | $316 | $284 | 10.13% |
| Core 2 Duo SL9400 | $316 | $284 | 10.13% |
| Core 2 Duo SU9400 | $289 | $262 | 9.3% |
- Time Warner Holding Back Super-fast Broadband?
- First Android Netbook Costs Just $100
- Duke Nukem Forever: Close to Completion?
- AMD Launches Low-Power 40-Watt Opteron EE
- Bluetooth 3.0 is Fast Like Ricky Bobby
- QOTD: Have You Bought An SSD Yet?
- Intel Says 6-Cores Not Delayed
- More Nvidia Ion: Zotac's Mini ITX Mobos
- Microsoft Posts Another Hiring for Windows 8
- IBM New Memory: Faster, Better, than SSDs
- Nvidia Releases OpenCL Driver
- Report: Intel SSD Price Cut on April 26
- Seagate's Energy-friendly 5,900 RPM HDDs
- AMD: 6-Core Istanbul Available in June
- White House May Step In for Cybersecurity
- Find Illegal Torrents Using Google
- Report: MSI to Unveil Android Netbook in June
- Pirate Bay Judge Accused of Bias
Still expensive than AMD's offering. When I translate those figures to Canadian Dollar, my Phenom II 810 is still cheaper by about CAD$50 than the Q8200S.
deltatux
Wonder how the Q8400 will perform over/clock. At sub $200 that might be a good upgrade option for me.
Those prices are still too high to spur any purchases. AMD has faster options for less money.
Still High ....
To repeat what everyone else said: They're just reducing their profit margins, anyone who was considering a Phenom II 940/955 will probably not be persuaded to go for an Intel instead.
AMD fanboi's aside, this is just Intel culling it's own so that the I7 and related next-gen chips will take precedence. Is it directly to muddle with AMD's offerings? Sure, a little. But this really has nothing to do with AMD and everything with Intel trying to get customers to buy into their new lineups.
Too bad they aren't dropping the prices of worthy LGA 775 Upgrade CPUs. I am wanting to go to a Q9650 from my E8400 when its time to upgrade for me. I don't want to jump into a whole new build just yet.
So, what is Apple's excuse now for not being able to do Quad-Core CPUs in the iMac? They now have cooler and lower power consuming Quad Cores.
This move has everything to do with AMD. If it was to give the i7 precedence, they would have lowered i7 prices making them more attractive and fly off shelves. It is still higher than AMD which is carving itself a nice little niche in the "bargain CPU" market (almost like the Wal-mart of CPUs, expect the cash flow). There really needs to be a price cut on all 775 CPUs to get them out so they could fully move to i7 and i5. If there was a cut on all 775, AMD would start leaping from their windows.
P.S.
Where are the CPU charts for Q1 2009? Come on TH.
The title of this looked promising, but I was disappointed to not find they had lowered the prices of the e8xxx core 2 duos. It's a shame really that an e8600 has remained at the same price for so long considering an i7 920 can be had for about the same price.
I love watching the technology market rapidly grow, get more expensive, then get dramatically cheaper.
Only 5 months ago I was satisfied with the thought of upgrading from Pentium D to C2D, now C2Q/phenomII seem to be the minimum.
I honestly don't understand the point in them releasing new C2Q's don't get me wrong they are great processors but their prices are still quiet high. Four of them even cost more than a i7 920 ($263) and some come very close one of them even just $1 cheaper. Now I understand that a upgrade is more preferred than a whole new build for some but getting those expensive cpu's on the list just wouldn't make sense. The Q8400 would be the only one I would consider buying.
*prays for a i7 drop*
I need a replacement for my e6750. Intel, sell me something quad core for a reasonable price please!
Was planning on purchasing an AMD for an upcoming complete computer rebuild and after looking at this information...I still am.
Might even go ahead and purchase the new 955 and fart in Intel's general direction.
I just noticed the file name of this page is "ntel-cpu-i7-core-prices,7603.html". Mistake?
There are a couple of them I was waiting to see a price drop on and they managed to miss them completely. Instead, the do modest price drops on all these middle of the road quad cores and one over priced "efficiency" version of the Q9550. Maybe it is working for them but it sure does not entice me at all.
. It is still higher than AMD which is carving itself a nice little niche in the "bargain CPU" market (almost like the Wal-mart of CPUs, expect the cash flow).
Honestly, I don't see the point. The cheapest i7 is much faster then the fastest AMD, at less than 100 bucks more, then considering that a quality mobo to suit the AMD chip is not all that less expensive then a decent mid-level i7 mobo, it just doesn't make sense to me to want an AMD chip, unless you already have the mobo and only want to pay for an upgrade.
I spent past few weeks playing around with mobo/memory/cpu combos for both AM2/AM3 and i7 set ups, and best I could do was an AMD set up about 150-200 bucks cheaper than an i7 setup. But in that same aspect, you get what you pay for, and the AMD set up would still have been far slower then an i7 setup.
In the end, I wanted to go back to AMD, because I was a huge fan of them back in the day with their K7 series and I think they are a great company that doesn't gouge their customers. But sadly I couldn't find any reason price/performance wise to go with AMD this year.
Maybe AMD can get back in the game in a year or 2.
My thoughts on why no updated chart.
Since late nov 2006 (8800 GTX and QX6700) things only seem to be about 20-40% faster (in 30 months!!! jeez), hence the lack of charts... why bother when things are progressing at a snails pace. At least the price of good graphics cards has gone down, now good CPU's need to follow.
@ airborne
$200 must not be much money to you. To some people that want to spend $500 on a computer $700 is a big step up. After regular expenses it takes some people a couple months to save up that extra $200.
I just bought a q6600 not too long ago as a drop in replacement for my E6300. It was about $200 I think but I wanted to get it before they quit making them. My motherboard will only support the 1066FSB chips. I may buy a new board and now though as my board doesn't over clock very well. A decent p43 board would probably run me $70 and I could just drop all my hardware on it.
Honestly, I don't see the point. The cheapest i7 is much faster then the fastest AMD, at less than 100 bucks more, then considering that a quality mobo to suit the AMD chip is not all that less expensive then a decent mid-level i7 mobo, it just doesn't make sense to me to want an AMD chip, unless you already have the mobo and only want to pay for an upgrade.I spent past few weeks playing around with mobo/memory/cpu combos for both AM2/AM3 and i7 set ups, and best I could do was an AMD set up about 150-200 bucks cheaper than an i7 setup. But in that same aspect, you get what you pay for, and the AMD set up would still have been far slower then an i7 setup.In the end, I wanted to go back to AMD, because I was a huge fan of them back in the day with their K7 series and I think they are a great company that doesn't gouge their customers. But sadly I couldn't find any reason price/performance wise to go with AMD this year.Maybe AMD can get back in the game in a year or 2.
Um... 150 - 200 bucks cheaper is great considering you're gonna get a useable system that probably suits your needs. To most people (the ones that fit in a bargain niche) 150 - 200 bucks is huge (too you it's a low end intel CPU).
The cheapest i7 (279 bucks) is how much faster than the fastest AMD? is the average bargain niche shopper going to notice?
What he will notice is that everytime he wants to go faster he needs a new motherboard + CPU, or pay 500+ dollars.
My thoughts on why no updated chart.Since late nov 2006 (8800 GTX and QX6700) things only seem to be about 20-40% faster (in 30 months!!! jeez), hence the lack of charts... why bother when things are progressing at a snails pace. At least the price of good graphics cards has gone down, now good CPU's need to follow.
I agree about GPUs, but CPUs (especially AMD) has really changed sine Q3 2008. There's been the E5 series, more E7, Q8, Phenom 2. Would be nice to see how they stacked up. Just me though....