Originally posted by: secretanchitman
probably going to get an E6600 or above next month on january 7th or something...ive been waiting for prices to go down for a while. that quad core looks mighty tempting at that price.
Originally posted by: Hulk
I'm wondering why they're dropping prices? Will there be some competition from AMD coming? Don't get me wrong I love the fact that prices are coming down, I'm just wondering why.
Usually prices drop when the competition is breathing down your neck or some new, faster top of the line chips are introduced forcing the current chips to move down in price.
Right now I think my darn Seagate 7200.10 is slowing things up more than my CPU. I should have gone with a Raptor...
Originally posted by: Xvys
So with the canceling of the E6390/6490, Intel's price drops will look like this in Q1 & Q2 2007 (mil rate).
Q6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 8MB cache - $851 - $530
E6700 - 2.66/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $530 - $316
E6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $316 - $224
E6400 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $224 - xxxx
E6420 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $183
E6300 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $183 - xxxx
E6320 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $163
E4400 - 2.00/800Mhz - 2MB cache - xxxx - $133
E4300 - 1.80/800Mhz - 2MB cache - $163 - $113
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
Originally posted by: Xvys
So with the canceling of the E6390/6490, Intel's price drops will look like this in Q1 & Q2 2007 (mil rate).
Q6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 8MB cache - $851 - $530
E6700 - 2.66/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $530 - $316
E6600 - 2.40/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - $316 - $224
E6400 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $224 - xxxx
E6420 - 2.13/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $183
E6300 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 2MB cache - $183 - xxxx
E6320 - 1.83/1066Mhz - 4MB cache - xxxx - $163
E4400 - 2.00/800Mhz - 2MB cache - xxxx - $133
E4300 - 1.80/800Mhz - 2MB cache - $163 - $113
aiye yayi aiya,
yaooooooooooooza
huba huba huba
Originally posted by: MDme
[...] In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
[...]
Originally posted by: Furen
Originally posted by: MDme
[...] In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
[...]
Wait, wait. As I understand, AMD is promising a 70% performance increase going from Dual-Dual-core to Dual-Quad-core. Twice the amount of cores is probably responsible for the Lion's share of this performance increase, though four-core to eight-core scaling is not even close to linear, so achieve a 70% performance increase does speak well of any further core-level changes, especially if the clock-speed is 2.5GHz (the rumored clock for initial Barcelona SEs). I found the chart that predicted a 40% FP performance advantage over the 2.66GHz Kentsfield much more interesting, since that would mean that this mystery part would offer FP performance in line with a Kentsfield 3.7ish.
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Furen
Originally posted by: MDme
[...] In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
[...]
Wait, wait. As I understand, AMD is promising a 70% performance increase going from Dual-Dual-core to Dual-Quad-core. Twice the amount of cores is probably responsible for the Lion's share of this performance increase, though four-core to eight-core scaling is not even close to linear, so achieve a 70% performance increase does speak well of any further core-level changes, especially if the clock-speed is 2.5GHz (the rumored clock for initial Barcelona SEs). I found the chart that predicted a 40% FP performance advantage over the 2.66GHz Kentsfield much more interesting, since that would mean that this mystery part would offer FP performance in line with a Kentsfield 3.7ish.
Most of that is PR bullshit and should be taken with a grain of salt until we see it in real world apps....fact of the matter is I have difficulty finding anything that can use all 4 cores now let alone 8 cores...The only thing I am certain then is running 8 instances of F@H....Therefore the performance would be linear....
Originally posted by: bob4432
Originally posted by: Duvie
Originally posted by: Furen
Originally posted by: MDme
[...] In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
[...]
Wait, wait. As I understand, AMD is promising a 70% performance increase going from Dual-Dual-core to Dual-Quad-core. Twice the amount of cores is probably responsible for the Lion's share of this performance increase, though four-core to eight-core scaling is not even close to linear, so achieve a 70% performance increase does speak well of any further core-level changes, especially if the clock-speed is 2.5GHz (the rumored clock for initial Barcelona SEs). I found the chart that predicted a 40% FP performance advantage over the 2.66GHz Kentsfield much more interesting, since that would mean that this mystery part would offer FP performance in line with a Kentsfield 3.7ish.
Most of that is PR bullshit and should be taken with a grain of salt until we see it in real world apps....fact of the matter is I have difficulty finding anything that can use all 4 cores now let alone 8 cores...The only thing I am certain then is running 8 instances of F@H....Therefore the performance would be linear....
duvie - just out of curiosity, doesn't smp/smt software use as many cores as possible? i assumed that it was not limited to just 2 cores....
Originally posted by: MDme
the price cuts sound really good. I am about to make an upgrade but decided to wait till Q2 to see if any K8L benches come up and see if it is indeed the time before turning to the dark side. (i am not an AMD fan boy but I just think that everything we see now from intel was somehow indirectly due to AMD - without AMD we would still be in Pentium III celebrating SSE1). In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
another thing, I think the argument of better top end intel processors don't necessarily explain everything.....why would intel suddenly offer a free 2mb other than for performance reasons (or consolidating manufacturing). They are probably gearing up for a fight 2H 07 rather than just being "generous".
my 2 cents
Originally posted by: MDme
the price cuts sound really good. I am about to make an upgrade but decided to wait till Q2 to see if any K8L benches come up and see if it is indeed the time before turning to the dark side. (i am not an AMD fan boy but I just think that everything we see now from intel was somehow indirectly due to AMD - without AMD we would still be in Pentium III celebrating SSE1). In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
another thing, I think the argument of better top end intel processors don't necessarily explain everything.....why would intel suddenly offer a free 2mb other than for performance reasons (or consolidating manufacturing). They are probably gearing up for a fight 2H 07 rather than just being "generous".
my 2 cents
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: MDme
the price cuts sound really good. I am about to make an upgrade but decided to wait till Q2 to see if any K8L benches come up and see if it is indeed the time before turning to the dark side. (i am not an AMD fan boy but I just think that everything we see now from intel was somehow indirectly due to AMD - without AMD we would still be in Pentium III celebrating SSE1). In fact, this price drop might actually be another present from AMD, as intel may have information that we don't: i.e. K8L processors which deliver the projected 70% performance improvement (vs K8) at current power envelopes. Imagine this: if AMD's current 90nm Socket-F opterons can be competitive (not better just competitive) with intel's woodcrests, it's 2nd and 3rd spin 65nm should be really good power-wise...add to that the promise of 70% (AMD's unofficial promise) we could see why price cuts are happening. To make us all buy now before we are swayed to go/stay AMD.
another thing, I think the argument of better top end intel processors don't necessarily explain everything.....why would intel suddenly offer a free 2mb other than for performance reasons (or consolidating manufacturing). They are probably gearing up for a fight 2H 07 rather than just being "generous".
my 2 cents
70% would only be a possibility when comparing dual core K8 to quad core K8L. I'm guessing K8L will come close to Core 2 performance clock for clock, chip for chip. However, I will go out on a limb and hypothesize that Core 2 will achieve higher clock speeds.
That 70% number is also very misleading. It's very difficult to achieve that kind of scaling when adding cores. That type of performance increase is only possible in programs that were basically designed to be multi-threaded. Look up Amdahl's Law. Just like 4x4 and Core 2 Quad, most of today's applictions simply won't see that kind of scaling. I'm not really as interested in 4 cores as I am in the core improvements to K8L. Hopefully both AMD and Intel will pause at 4 cores for awhile and focus on more architectural improvements. The scaling from 4 to 8 cores will be terrible on today's software (desktop software anyway).