Even though there are not a lot of single-core chips in Intel’s microprocessor lineup now, quad-core processors are not going to become really affordable soon enough. After Intel introduces its new 45nm central processing units in January, 2008, the company will not cut pricing of its Intel Core 2 Quad below $266.
The new code-named Yorkfield processors, which will be sold under Intel Core 2 Quad trademark with Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 model numbers, will be priced at $530, $316 and $266 in 1000-unit quantities, respectively. Intel will also not cease to offer its 65nm quad-core microprocessors Q6700 and Q6600 for $530 and $266, respectively. The newer chips are projected to deliver considerably higher performance compared to predecessors thanks to improved micro-architecture, higher-speed processor system busses and cache sizes.
The fact that Intel has no plans to reduce pricing of its quad-core chips signals that the company feels itself comfortabe selling products with four processing engines at price-points starting at $266 and expects no substantial competition from Advanced Micro Devices, who is struggling to deliver quad-core enthusiast-class chips in late 2007 and quad-core and tri-core desktop processors in Q1 2008.
Intel officials did not comment on the news-story.
The new Q9000-series/45nm microprocessors are projected to have greater instructions per clock (IPC) execution compared to today’s chips, which means that they will be faster and more efficient even at the same clock-speeds with the current generation chips.
The major micro-architectural improvements for new Intel Core 2 processors, besides SSE4 instruction set, include the so-called Unique Super Shuffle Engine and Radix 16 technique. The Super Shuffle Engine is a full-width, single-pass shuffle unit that is 128-bits wide, which can perform full-width shuffles in a single cycle. This significantly improves performance for SSE2, SSE3 and SSE4 instructions that have shuffle-like operations such as pack, unpack and wider packed shifts. This feature will increase performance for content creation, imaging, video and high-performance computing. Radix 16 technique, according to Intel, roughly doubles the divider speed over previous generations for computations used in nearly all applications. In addition, Intel also improved virtualization technology as well as added some features to dynamic acceleration technology, which is supposed to boost single-threaded applications’ performance on multi-core chips.
Comments currently:
11
Discussion started: 10/13/07 06:36:18 AM
Latest comment: 10/18/07 11:44:20 AM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-8]
1.
Reasonable decision.
The Q6600 is at a perfect price point to move quad-core into the broader market.
Lower QC prices would also be a threat to dual-cores which are Intels strongest product IMHO (yes, even more than QC).
[
Posted by: 1234
|
Date: 10/13/07 06:36:18 AM]
2.
We can blame AMD for this pricing. Come on AMD, kick the Phenom up....
[
Posted by: psece
|
Date: 10/13/07 07:02:55 AM]
3.
Intel won't have any incentive to lower quad core prices until there is a competitor on the market.
It is a prefectly reasonable decision from the business standpoint. If you want quad now, (excluding socket F opterons), you have to buy Intel.
(A note to critics of AMD, even if you hate the company, they make your favorite chips cheaper. Hooray competition!)
I am looking forward to the quad core pricing wars.
[
Posted by: McKnight
|
Date: 10/13/07 08:39:51 AM]
4.
See there INTEL FANBOIS
A littel taste of an AMD-less world ( Like in 1995 ).
So before you start Dishing "AMD MUST DIE" slogans use the little Rational you have and think first. ( At least if your still Mature or Capable enough to do it ).
And I am Blaming AMD too for doing a Half assed job in Competing against Intel.
[
Posted by: huh
|
Date: 10/13/07 09:35:46 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
regardless of whichever company, on a business standpoint it only makes sense for them to maintain their QC prices as they are clearly the current leader in their market segment...
if AMD where on a different situation... you'd also be seeing quad-FX chips that are beyond anyone's pocket money...
[
Posted by: chips
|
Date: 10/14/07 08:25:27 PM]
5.
In AMD's defense, they are very small compared to Intel.
(AMD has market value of only ~5% of Intels). They have had to develop state of the art technologies and stay competitive with a giant.
[
Posted by: McKnight
|
Date: 10/13/07 10:13:46 AM]
6.
I wonder if Intel is going to produce LGA775 Xeons on the 45nm die?
[
Posted by: Al K. Hall
|
Date: 10/14/07 03:32:37 PM]
7.
Now you can see the true color of Intel , without any competition intel will not care about consumers and I hate all fanboism who think no need competition even if AMD is second best or Intel second best.
We need both so that the benefit is in our hand and I pray for god that AMD success in their latest products
[
Posted by: Londerov
|
Date: 10/14/07 04:37:03 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
really?? you just showed your true color of being a fanboy
last time i checked AMD has yet to sell a single quad-core...
if AMD had the only quad core chip in the market... they'll definitely market it as highly expensive FX chip... which will probably worth $2000+
$266 for the only retail-available quad core is a bargain
[
Posted by: chips
|
Date: 10/18/07 11:44:20 AM]
8.
"Now you can see the true color of Intel ..."
Why should Intel cut quad core prices below $266? They still have to make profit. Building those FABs doesn't come cheap. $266 is an entirely appropriate price for the quad core CPUs. It's really a bargain for all that processing power that you're getting.
[
Posted by: GIANT
|
Date: 10/15/07 10:10:12 PM]
[1-8]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Slashdot
