Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Intel's 45nm CPUs: High Prices and Limited Availability, When Will it End?
Intel launched its first 45nm processors at the end of last year in order to somewhat stick to its annual tick-tock schedule. The Core 2 Extreme QX9650 made it out, but what everyone wanted were the mainstream chips - affordable 45nm for all.
At CES, Intel announced its full 45nm lineup which is as follows:
| Cores | Clock Speed | L2 Cache Size | FSB | 1 Ku Price | Availability | |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X9000 | 2 | 2.80GHz | 6MB | 800MHz | $851 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 | 2 | 2.60GHz | 6MB | 800MHz | $530 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 | 2 | 2.50GHz | 6MB | 800MHz | $316 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 | 2 | 2.40GHz | 3MB | 800MHz | $241 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo T8100 | 2 | 2.10GHz | 3MB | 800MHz | $209 | January |
| Intel Xeon X3360 | 4 | 2.83GHz | 12MB | 1333MHz | $530 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Xeon X3350 | 4 | 2.66GHz | 12MB | 1333MHz | $316 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Xeon X3320 | 4 | 2.50GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $266 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Xeon E3110 | 2 | 3.00GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $188 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 | 4 | 2.83GHz | 12MB | 1333MHz | $530 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 | 4 | 2.66GHz | 12MB | 1333MHz | $316 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 | 4 | 2.50GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $266 | Q1 '08 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 | 2 | 3.16GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $266 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 | 2 | 3.00GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $183 | January |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 | 2 | 2.66GHz | 6MB | 1333MHz | $163 | January |
The first issue we had was that availability wasn't in January. We were able to benchmark mobile Penryn (the first five CPUs on that chart) in January, but you couldn't buy systems based on mobile Penryn until late February. The mobile Penryn issue ended up being more of a motherboard design problem than a chip availability issue, thus it makes sense that we saw desktop 45nm dual core CPUs in early February.
It's almost the end of Q1 and we are just now starting to see 45nm quad core desktop CPUs arrive, but the problem with both these and the 45nm dual core chips is pricing. Take a look at the table below:
| MSRP | Street Price | Premium | |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 | $266 | $299 | +$33 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 | $183 | $259 | +$76 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 | $163 | $239 | +$76 |
Most of the 45nm lineup is still not available for purchase in the channel. The three CPUs we've listed above are the only ones (out of 6) that you can actually purchase at Newegg, and they all sell at a premium. The quad core Q9300 carries the lowest premium of them all at $299, while the two dual core CPUs are selling for $76 more than what they should be thanks to high demand and limited supply.
We know supply is limited, the question is why? Intel's latest roadmap actually helps answer that. The chart below shows a breakdown of processor shipments into the consumer desktop space as a function of time, so you get an idea for the breakdown of 65nm vs. 45nm for each quarter of 2008:
Current 65nm Core 2 Quads sell for MSRP and they are represented by the second block (light blue) at the top of the Q1 stacked bar. The 45nm Core 2 Quad supply is but a sliver by comparison (5% of Intel's shipments are 65nm Core 2 Quads, while 2% are 45nm Core 2 Quads). It would be safe to assume that once Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad shipments are similar in size to the 65nm shipments today that we should see prices stabilize. If you look at the Q2 bar you'll see that next quarter Intel will produce more 45nm quad core CPUs than 65nm quad core CPUs, and at that point you can expect to see availability of the Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 - all at reasonable prices, with no premium.
Now let's look at what's happening in the 45nm dual core space. Over 40% of Intel's production in Q1 was 65nm Core 2 Duos, and around 3% were 45nm Core 2 Duo processors - no wonder these things are selling at insane premiums. It's also worth noting that since demand for the dual core CPUs is so much higher than for the quad core chips and supplies are just as tight, the premiums are higher (explaining what we saw in the table above).
Unfortunately, relief for those interested in 45nm dual core won't come for quite a while. In Q2, Intel's 45nm dual core shipments will grow from 3% to 12%, but not to the 40%+ level it needs to be to satisfy demand. The 45nm premium on dual core CPUs will be down from its current levels, but we won't see these things selling at MSRP until Q3.
It's normally a good thing for AMD when Intel CPUs are more expensive, but not exactly in this case. The problem is that AMD needs Intel's quad core CPUs to be more expensive since that's where Phenom is trying to compete, but the Q6600 is still available at MSRP and the Q9300 et al will be selling at MSRP in the next 1 - 3 months.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I kinda agree with the others about this being a massive fluff piece. The following take on clock speeds really emphasizes the bias built into this article, about Phenom's clock speeds and potential performance:and on the very next page:
There isn't anything special about 3GHz, AMD just can't get this hot turd to run that fast, period.
pomaikai - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Just bought a phenom for an upgrade. It is the old stepping, but the person I got it for will never do virtualization or overclock. I couldnt pass up an OEM Phenom 9600 for $132.Dribble - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I agree Q9300 is no Q6600 replacement because the whole point of the Q6600 was you could over clock it to get a real high performance part. Because the Q9300 uses the 333 fsb trying to get over clocks similar to even the Q6600 requires a much higher fsb. Particularly as the max fsb for a quad is significantly lower then for dual's, you'll max out most motherboards before you even reach the max possible Q6600 speeds.coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Q9300 is a reaplcement if your not an overclocker it has better stock perfomrance and to most of intel's OEM's it is, so overall it is a better. From both a stock performance and energy consumption standpoint.If your trying to overclock you will likely need at least the Q9450.
7Enigma - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I have been waiting to build a system now for a couple months and I really wanted to use the 9450 due to the 12mb cache compared to the Q9300. The newegg out of stock price, however, is listed at $380!!!My price sweetspot for a CPU has always been around $300 since I only upgrade systems every 3-4 years so am willing to spend more on the cpu than other components.
Anand, do you happen to have a comparison between the 9450 and 9300 (preferably at the same clock speed?) to see exactly how much that doubling of L2 cache helps in different situations. I primarily game, but always multitask and have other programs running so would really like to know if that extra 6mb is helpful (especially in the next 3 years).
Thanks.
archcommus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
My situation exactly. I was hoping to build a new system first week of May with a 9450, due to wanting a quad-core 45nm part with the best cache/price ratio, but it doesn't look like it will be affordable by that time (I'm willing to pay $316, not more though). So I too am curious if the 9300 will fit the bill (also planning to keep for 3-4 years).DigitalFreak - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
AMD still make stinky stinky. Pew!formulav8 - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link
Grow up. Intel doesn't like you.Proteusza - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Is it all possible for you guys to release the replay which you used to test performance? I want to compare my system to these, because I'm considering upgrading to Phenom. Pity MSI hasnt released a BIOS update for my motherboard that allows it to use Phenom CPUs, so I might be waiting a while (its a K9N SLI Platinum, in future I will just buy Asus).Note to anyone who plays Supreme Commander with a multicore CPU - there is a tool that improves performance by allocating threads to CPUs better. It is specific to SupCom, which tends to have one CPU with 100% usage, and the rest with 20%. The tool automatically adjusts the affinity. Go to forums.gaspowered.com and look in around for a thread related to Core Maximizer.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Ok amd is doing better. The Q6600 has been out for what? over a year now. And its still owning AMD's baby. And to top that off, I though the whole 'pure' quad core technology was supposd to be better then the lets slap 2 dual cores into one package method of Intel.Its nice Amd can FINALLY start to play with the big boys... But the way this article was written is just garbage, A year late and a dollar short.
As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200.
So why is this article written in such postive light for AMD? A nice paycheck for the author. The conclusion is clear... Intel OWNS AMD. The price difference on the market is 0. The ability to overclock the q6600 is as easy as switching the bus to 1333mhz, and the ownage will grow.
So yes amd made an improvemnt over the crap they had. However their current cream of the crop is owned by the 1+ year old stuff.
Its like getting into the hotest club right before they close... Wow you got in... But its time to go.