• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

April Launch Details

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
MadMan007 said:
Dunno, the $266 quad is pretty damn sweet as well. I still have no use for a quad as badass as those prices are though. Less than I paid for my C2D :rolleyes: Maybe I can 'hope' they won't clock as high so I wouldn't feel as bad :p
yeah, that's a good deal too. i didn't point it out, because we already knew that at the same time (q3) the q6600 will drop to the same price.
 
Well I didn't even know there was going to be a 'q6400' so that one was news to me :p Intel is really going all-out trying to hammer AMD. I guess Ed's article was right, at this point it almost seems to be about corporate ego than business sense and reasonable profits. They must really be on the warpath to release such cheap quads.
 
anyone know the info for the april price drops or anything

stun us soon with some news
i dont think amd will "stun" us with some news but thast just what i think since they have been pretty quite IMO
 
If true, those prices are stunning. In a few months you'll be able to get a quad core processor for $50 less than what a dual core processor goes for now (comparing Q3 Q6600 with current E6600). I can't imagine them actually being that cheap to make. Or if they are, they must be putting a serious dent in their profits to release some pent up aggression at AMD regarding the last 3-4 years.

A quad core at so cheap a price is a serious temptation, especially considering it being $50 less than what I paid for my E6600. I know my folding@home and video encoding would be very happy.

What has me scratching my head though is why a dual core and quad core are the same price (Q6600 and E6850). Sure there's a 600MHz core and 267MHz FSB difference, but 2 more cores is 2 more cores - that 600MHz isn't going to matter. I'd love to have sat in on the meeting where they decided this. Curious as to what their official reasoning will be.
 
And i bet here in the good old rip off islands that are the United Kingdom, the powers that be dont translate those good old Usd's correctly. Currently quad qx6700 retails at £657.59 + shipping,which at current exchange is $1277.68 or there abouts. I have seen them a lot cheaper than that on websites in the us and i beleive they only launched at $999 so i think any chances of new technology coming in any cheaper aint gonna happen.

At least not here in rip off Britain.
 
This $266 quad core thing reminds me a little of the whole AMD reverse hyperthreading fiasco. I just don't see it happening. Not that I don't want it to but.....
 
holy cow!
Guys, did you hear of the new fund to stop the global warming? It turns out one of the members on this board still uses a presshot, which causes massive greenhouse gasses, and everyone will die unless everyone donates $1000 to the poor fellow with a screen name 'ShadowPho' to go towards the much cleaner QX9999 for the sake of our planet.

j/k :D
MMM... I can see quad cores at $266. Actually, I see newegg gouiging sytem working at full speed to sell Q6600 for $400.
 
All this looks interesting and great... IF ...youre in the market for a system at that time. The way I see it, until a hell of a lot more games are multi-threaded I see no point in upgrading my happy 3.6GHz E6600. I play games primarily and just about every single one pegs out only a single core, while the other is sitting around 20% at most. What the hell is the point of getting another two idle cores during gaming?

Until the software catches up, I am not convinced of quads one bit. When it finally does, I will still most likely wait to see what the 45nm chips have to offer.

Call me old fashioned, but I still want more raw MHz. :mad:
 
Yes those are valid points and I agree for most anyone who doesn't use the few apps for which quads are useful, or who doesn't consistently do heavy multitasking in a tim=money environment. Personally I will hold off until 45nm to do anything, assuming AMD doesn't catch up, and be happy with the silly power of an oc'd C2D.
 
I'm actually going to upgrade with the April price cuts. I'm still running s478, so a C2D is going to be a huge upgrade. Hopefully 45nm quad-cores will work on a AW9D Max so that I will have a nice upgrade path down the road with the rest of my system.
 
Surfrider77 said:
All this looks interesting and great... IF ...youre in the market for a system at that time. The way I see it, until a hell of a lot more games are multi-threaded I see no point in upgrading my happy 3.6GHz E6600. I play games primarily and just about every single one pegs out only a single core, while the other is sitting around 20% at most. What the hell is the point of getting another two idle cores during gaming?

Until the software catches up, I am not convinced of quads one bit. When it finally does, I will still most likely wait to see what the 45nm chips have to offer.

Call me old fashioned, but I still want more raw MHz. :mad:

I still want a quadcore! :D Like, I can just picture, a game having 2 cores, then the other core handling WMP, FF, converting a movie, and the last core can render my images all on its own core! :D

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... I need one more core to fold.
 
Back