if less than a grand probably take a look at it.

I can see people lining up at mail-order stores for this. People have been lining up for lesser reasons. The mid-range yorkfields will be an even bigger hit early next year. Can't wait!

Intel's bulk release price is $999, so you can expect to see it at retailers for at least $1050, probably even a little more at first.

Well it will most likely sell for $999 so I guess that’s under a grand... But with Q6600's and other Quads being under the $500 mark you would have to only be in the hardcore class to buy this chip... or I would classify you as insane.

Come on Intel you just can't say this without making it available now, I wanna now!

Now at least AMD has an idea of the competition it expects towards the end of the year. Phenom's better be something great!

Based on their recent history a quad core 2 Extreme should debut around $1,500 and then drop to $1,000 to $1,200 within 3 months

no kidding... price should be interesting for that enthusiest cpu.

Phenom what?

Give me a couple of these babys and one of those 640GB PCI-E flash 'drives', and I'll be a happy camper.

...its looking to be an overpriced Xeon 5450 according to xbit.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/c...2710.html

Strangely they didnt go for 3.16GHz like the top end Xeon 5460, or maybe they are saving that for something "new" later on.

according to news, 45 nm core 2 duos will debut at a price of 999, but dunno what speed it is... mosst likely its gonna be more than a grand for the extreme edition..

@paullubbock:

er...um....all the prices are listed.

according to the article, it will be under a grand. well, $999

QX96503.0 GHz $999
Q99502.83 GHz $530

Q94502.66 GHz $316
Q93002.50 GHz $266

these are the expected Yorkfield launch prices.
Below are the Wolfdale launch prices.

E85003.16 GHz $266
E84003.00 GHz $183

Prices are good.

Sorry. the prices I noted above are for 1000 tray quantities. My apologies.

I am gonna wait for the 9550 or 9450 depending on street prices and special offers.

Now I only need a good PCIe 2.0 MOBO, Nvidia 92 and I am good to go

That is what AMD should be afraid of.. they have nothing that can even compete with the E8400. A slow quadcore is useless (99% of the time) next to a fast dualcore.

I was under the impression that these chips would have higher frequencies.
For $1000 does 12mb L2 cache and a slightly faster bus make that much difference?

The CPU is more expensive than xeon, bc of extreme CPU has unlocked multiplier

@ nicholas, your knowledge of these new chips is very limited considering they have architecture upgrades and changes... so yes they are very much faster at even the same clock.

Any chance that AMD will be able to compete this year?
Maybe with some CELL tech form IBM?

Actually, the speed increase is probably about 5-10% on average over conroe, so if you have a quad core intel now there will be no point to upgrade.

Not to mention, the Extreme Edition is never worth it anyway...

This is what I am waiting for. Get me one of the newer cheaper quad cores to replace my q6600.

AMD wouldn't be able to afford buying Cell technology from IBM withour falling into further debt along with the fact that Cell processors don't make good PC processord. If you put a Cell processor next to a QX6850 it would be as if the Cell was crap.

And the EE's are not worth it in the begining but once they drop price are totaly worth it. I grabbed a P4 3.4 EE, up from a P4 3.2, and it cut my DVD9 ripping time from 30mins to just under 7mins. Normaly once they drop prices they are worth it. I got mine for 130 bucks on Ebay and am very happy.

My option is The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is powerful processor because it's 3GHZx4=12GHZ!!!! since it's quad cored.but it's only useful when it run on mutithread program/application like Computer Aid Design because CAD demands heavy processing

I like it

Why the h**l would you spend $1,000 on a processor?

Honestly, what are you going to use it for?

[These are very good questions. I could not agree more. Especially when you consider that just five years ago we had nothing close to today's compute abilities, and yet we seemed to get by just fine. Oh yeah, consider our lives 25 years ago. No personal computers at all to speak of. -Rick]

Anybody who even (remotely) truly need this kind of consumer power would never buy a processor whn it first hit the streets, you wait until the next big thing comes along and buy the previous one and save a bundle.

But that aside; what do you need it for? I mean right now? Will word type faster? Will your encoding be 10% faster? Do you really need to cram out an extra 7 fps from your gaming?

Spend that money on a solid MB instead, or on some quality RAM, or go crazy and set up a proper RAID, this will speed up your system overall a helluva lot more than what ever gain this fools-gold...

Until they can get over 500 Mhz FSB then what's the point.

That's the bottle neck and the cap of truly getting the most bang for your dollar.

Unlocking multipliers and anything else stops there...

I'm not sure how much attention you actually pay to processor announcements. Nehalem, the next archetecture from Intel due in late 2008/early 2009 won't use FSB at all. It will be similar to AMD's current chips and will have a direct interconnect. Although it will be the same principle in terms of overclocking, it will no longer be a bottleneck, no matter your definition of the word.

AMD has Hyper-Transport, which scales much better than slapping two dual-core processors in one package, instead of four monolithic cores on one die. As a result the 333/1333 FSB architecture is going to struggle, as well as draw more overall power from the system. A huge cache is also going to such the amps in.

Ice, ask yourself what AMD is actually competing with here: a techinicall inferior design that just has a better power envolope due to the 45 nm process. However, that advantage will be dogged by bandwidth issues and that huge cache requiring considerable power. AMD has historically designed good, long-term products that are better by design not because they can ooze out more MHz or cache. Have faith :)

To make the most of this CPU you're going to need some good, fast memory especially if you plan on overclocking, as well as a good cooler. That's going to add considerable cost.

Where is this product going to be used? You don't need the fastest processor for servers, and price is obviously a factor as well as how well multiple CPU cores scale. On that front, I would buy AMD and not Intel. For me, this is over-priced and bottlenecked.

Well said! Who needs this? Sure, it's great for bragging rights incredibly complex CAD, visualisation software, but the majority won't see a huge difference, certainly not enough to justify the price IMO. You made a valid point, I fell: stability and functionality should be the order of the day, irrespective of the system use. My clients still use AMD Applebred Duron's to run MS Office, with no complaints; those systems run 24/7 and are as close to 100% stable as possible. This new CPU will do one thing better..it will crash Windows faster ;)

William,
It is apparent from your above posts that not only do you suffer from some sort of bi-polar/multiplicity personality disorder, but that you are also such an AMD fanboy that you have simply chosen to ignore reality and substitute your own make believe version in it's place. AMD doesn't have a chance in hell of catching up anytime before 2010. And even then that's still being generous.

Yes...

I was speaking from a today standpoint of this article and the newly annouced X38 chipset for people building and using today.

The fact that this processor will have the multiplier unlocked doesn't help OCers escape 485 - 495 FSB limit.

www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/26/intel_x38_chipset/

I appreciate the info though... your posting will help others that may not have known.

Although the usefulness compared to a equivalent QX6850 is not much it will still use less power overall compared to it even though they are increasing the cache due to the die shrink.

What a lot of people forget also is that Intel is using its new hig-k gate technology which lowere temps and power usage by 20% and its not even perfected yet.

William is pretty AMD fanboyish as he doesn't seem to understand that AMDs "true quad-core" CPUs don't even beat the current Intel quad-cores. And now they have to deal with this and in Q2/Q3 08 its Intels Nehalem will include a hyper-transport type system and be put into 32nm process which will decreas temps and power usage again.

And AMD is so busy woundering how to catch up in both CPU/GPU markets and how to pay off their debt that they can't focus. Personally AMD has dug themselves into a very deep hole and are very far from getting out.

Right now Intel is really playing hardball and pushing so many new technologies so fast that are so far great reliable products. I have a Q6600 and love the chip although its just a temporary CPU until the lower end quad Penryns come out.