Intel to Delay Q9300, Q9450 & Q9550

[21stHermit]

According to this Digitimes article, Intel will delay its budget 45nm Quad Cores for 2-3 months due to a lack of competitive pressure from AMD.

We'll know in a few weeks if its true.

 

[taltamir]

I am guessing it is... i am also guessing they will sell it for twice what they would have if AMD was still a player.

 

[ViRGE]

DigiTimes is usually a reliable rag, so I have little doubt this information is true. It's exactly what we've been fearing.

 

[AmberClad]

Well, that didn't take Intel long, did it :roll:. So it starts.

 

[Sylvanas]

Sigh.....well It's up to AMD to competitively price Phenom but It's not going to be 2005 just yet.

 

[21stHermit]

Two things struck me in thinking this over . . . you know nightmares.

1] Since it cost Intel less to build a 45nm compared to a 65nm Quad, smaller die. You'd think for economic reason they would bring out the Q9xxx's. Perhaps the 45nm fab isn't up to full speed?

2] Will this also impact Nahalem?

Clearly Phenom is Phenomonally Pflat!!!

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
Two things struck me in thinking this over . . . you know nightmares.

1] Since it cost Intel less to build a 45nm compared to a 65nm Quad, smaller die. You'd think for economic reason they would bring out the Q9xxx's. Perhaps the 45nm fab isn't up to full speed?

2] Will this also impact Nahalem?

Clearly Phenom is Phenomonally Pflat!!!

Well I'm Phenomonally happy I bought my Q6600 for $260 when I did instead of waiting like alot of people were saying.

But seriously, this sucks for the consumer and ironically goes against the tick-tock plan that Intel has been screaming from the mountain tops.

On the other end, AMD is like a patient on life support at the moment. Just not pretty.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
Two things struck me in thinking this over . . . you know nightmares.

1] Since it cost Intel less to build a 45nm compared to a 65nm Quad, smaller die. You'd think for economic reason they would bring out the Q9xxx's. Perhaps the 45nm fab isn't up to full speed?

2] Will this also impact Nahalem?

Clearly Phenom is Phenomonally Pflat!!!

Well I'm Phenomonally happy I bought my Q6600 for $260 when I did instead of waiting like alot of people were saying.

But seriously, this sucks for the consumer and ironically goes against the tick-tock plan that Intel has been screaming from the mountain tops.

On the other end, AMD is like a patient on life support at the moment. Just not pretty.

LOL.... Thought I would point that out... I also agree with you. I am very satisfied with my Q6600. Besides, with the very low multi's on these new budget penryn's would stifle their overclock potential.

 

[defiantsf]

Between the Nvidia's 680i mess-up and the Q9550/9450 delay, I guess I will be saving some money early next year.

 

[heyheybooboo]

45nm Core 2 Quad launch delayed due to erratum?

 

[AMDZen]

Damn you AMD. I was postponing my first Intel build for over 10 years for these bad boys in January, and I agree that now Intel will probably raise pricing too.

 

[Miramonti]

I'm not sure Intel would want to intentionally give AMD breathing space. Amd is on the ropes, and it would seem foolish to let up at this point.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I'm not sure Intel would want to intentionally give AMD breathing space. Amd is on the ropes, and it would seem foolish to let up at this point. They can relax all they want after amd files for bankruptcy.

I truly believe Intel does NOT want AMD to go Chapter 11.

While I don't see Intel giving AMD $1B, they need at least the facade of competition. Putting AMD out of business would not go over well, particularly in Europe.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I'm not sure Intel would want to intentionally give AMD breathing space. Amd is on the ropes, and it would seem foolish to let up at this point.

Totally agree...100%.

Intel, if you reading this, please still release the Q9450 in January at $316 MSRP....I want one!!

 

[Phynaz]

Remember, I was the first to say that Intel would push Nehalem into 2009 due to Phailnom

 

[Acanthus]

exactly what i didnt want.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit

Originally posted by: jjsole
I'm not sure Intel would want to intentionally give AMD breathing space. Amd is on the ropes, and it would seem foolish to let up at this point. They can relax all they want after amd files for bankruptcy.

I truly believe Intel does NOT want AMD to go Chapter 11.

While I don't see Intel giving AMD $1B, they need at least the facade of competition. Putting AMD out of business would not go over well, particularly in Europe.

Amd has had a significant impact reducing Intel's margins and throttling their marketshare. The only reason I can think they may not want to see them go bankrupt is concern that Amd may be more effective and competitive if they were owned/run by someone like Ibm, which a firesale could prompt. A change in ownership and management could potentially turn Amd into an even more formidable and durable competitor.

 

[BLHealthy4life]

I was looking forward to picking up a 9450 in early Feb...but I can wait another month or two...

my Q6600 is doing just fine at 3.72

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: 21stHermit

Originally posted by: jjsole
I'm not sure Intel would want to intentionally give AMD breathing space. Amd is on the ropes, and it would seem foolish to let up at this point. They can relax all they want after amd files for bankruptcy.

I truly believe Intel does NOT want AMD to go Chapter 11.

While I don't see Intel giving AMD $1B, they need at least the facade of competition. Putting AMD out of business would not go over well, particularly in Europe.

Amd has had a significant impact reducing Intel's margins and throttling their marketshare. The only reason I can think they may not want to see them go bankrupt is concern that Amd may be more effective and competitive if they were owned/run by someone like Ibm, which a firesale could prompt. A change in ownership and management could potentially turn Amd into an even more formidable and durable competitor.

You're absolutely correct, IF we lived in a purely market driven world, we don't. Politics play a large part in the real world.

One has only to look at Microsoft's continued problems in Europe to understand this reality. Being the 800# gorilla in your market segment brings a spotlight on your business practices.

 

[eelw]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Amd has had a significant impact reducing Intel's margins and throttling their marketshare.

Throttling??? A lost of like 10 market points by Intel is hardly throttling by AMD.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Just as well! Until we get some mobo's that will reliably do 550-600mhz FSB these things are pretty much useless to overclockers. It is widely expected that these will overclock past 4ghz with ease but with the low multi's it will require some insane FSB speeds

Q9450 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 525x8
Q9300 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 560x7.5

The FSB limit on current mobo's using a quad seems to be 450-475mhz if your lucky.
Which means your top overclock on current boards for these chips would be:
Q9450 3.6-3.8ghz
Q9300 3.1-3.3ghz
You can equal that or better with a 1066FSB Q6600, so whats the point

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Just as well! Until we get some mobo's that will reliably do 550-600mhz FSB these things are pretty much useless to overclockers. It is widely expected that these will overclock past 4ghz with ease but with the low multi's it will require some insane FSB speeds

Q9450 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 525x8
Q9300 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 560x7.5

The FSB limit on current mobo's using a quad seems to be 450-475mhz if your lucky.
Which means your top overclock on current boards for these chips would be:
Q9450 3.6-3.8ghz
Q9300 3.1-3.3ghz
You can equal that or better with a 1066FSB Q6600, so whats the point

True Dat.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Just as well! Until we get some mobo's that will reliably do 550-600mhz FSB these things are pretty much useless to overclockers. It is widely expected that these will overclock past 4ghz with ease but with the low multi's it will require some insane FSB speeds

Q9450 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 525x8
Q9300 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 560x7.5

The FSB limit on current mobo's using a quad seems to be 450-475mhz if your lucky.
Which means your top overclock on current boards for these chips would be:
Q9450 3.6-3.8ghz
Q9300 3.1-3.3ghz
You can equal that or better with a 1066FSB Q6600, so whats the point

Thanks GD,

I kind of knew that, but your numbers make the picture crystal clear.

I doubt any of this is lost on Intel, ie low multi & high FSB = no OC.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Just as well! Until we get some mobo's that will reliably do 550-600mhz FSB these things are pretty much useless to overclockers. It is widely expected that these will overclock past 4ghz with ease but with the low multi's it will require some insane FSB speeds

Q9450 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 525x8
Q9300 @ 4.2ghz = FSB 560x7.5

The FSB limit on current mobo's using a quad seems to be 450-475mhz if your lucky.
Which means your top overclock on current boards for these chips would be:
Q9450 3.6-3.8ghz
Q9300 3.1-3.3ghz
You can equal that or better with a 1066FSB Q6600, so whats the point

You're right, I thought the new DFI got up to 500 but damn. I just went and read some reviews. Where are our OC'ing boards?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
Two things struck me in thinking this over . . . you know nightmares.

1] Since it cost Intel less to build a 45nm compared to a 65nm Quad, smaller die. You'd think for economic reason they would bring out the Q9xxx's. Perhaps the 45nm fab isn't up to full speed?

2] Will this also impact Nahalem?

Clearly Phenom is Phenomonally Pflat!!!

Understand that by GAAP (generally accepted account practices) the accounting numbers for converting to a new tech node pretty much always make it preferable to DELAY the capital expenditures (called capex in the semicon industry) if the competition will not be pressuring your margins.

TI still ships an amazing volume of 130nm product because the cost per chip is extremely low thanks to GAAP and depreciation AND that no one really competed effectively with TI in the GSM wireless space.

Same for Intel...yes it can cost less to produce a 45nm chip versus a 65nm chip WHEN a hell of a lot of other things are equal (die sizes, yields, cycle-time thru fab and packaging and test, and ALL equipment is >4yrs old and fully (equally being the objective here) depreciated so that something like higher performance of 45nm over 65nm drives higher ASPs and thusly higher margins OR similiar performance with smaller die sizes, etc etc etc)).

Based on my experience with TI and the economics that drove our node transistions...I would not endorse anyone's statement which was to an effect nothing more than "well 45nm is cheaper than 65nm, idinit?"