Q7500, a budget quad core for under $150

[ricanflow]

Even with DDR3 bandwidth. AM3 would still trail behind i7 by quite a bit.

cache is still a big factor.

Give a 940 DDR3, 12mb cache with a 95w tdp and it would be even more of a monster.

How much are the new AM3 mobos going to cost? Not all AM2+ boards will support the new chips...

Not sure...i have a high end Am2+ board and paid $200 for it so they may not be that cheap.

 

[Hussein19891]

945 will have 125 watt TDP.

Besides the 925 has 95 watt TDP.

Hmmm, since 945 is not black edition. Does that mean over clocking through the bus?

 

[maroon1]

Doesn't mean the Q7500 will perform the same as the Phenoms.

I pretty sure that it will be better than lower end phenom like Phenom 9600 and 9550. In addition, it will have lower power consumption and heat.

 

[Hussein19891]

It will be a capable 45nm Quad core thats for sure.

Just not for "enthutiast."

Like you said maroon its Intels budget Quad Core. If it overclocks decently and performs well enough, it should sell like hot cakes.

 

[dario03]

I don't know guys I think it will be ok with 2mb cache. Thats basically 1mb for each dual core on it. My dual core e2180 only has 1mb cache and it does ok. More cache would be better of course but if this thing is decently under $150 and gets over 3ghz it would be a decent choice.

I remember reading a article once that showed that there wasn't a huge difference in performance with bigger cache on core 2. Something like 6mb cache chips were 7% faster clock for clock against 2mb or maybe only 1mb chips or something like that. I forget the exacts and if that was gaming or average of a bunch of stuff.

In any case I expect to see this in a lot of lower end pre-builts since quad core looks really impressive on a best buy product tag.

 

[veg1992]

I don't know guys I think it will be ok with 2mb cache. Thats basically 1mb for each dual core on it. My dual core e2180 only has 1mb cache and it does ok. More cache would be better of course but if this thing is decently under $150 and gets over 3ghz it would be a decent choice.

I remember reading a article once that showed that there wasn't a huge difference in performance with bigger cache on core 2. Something like 6mb cache chips were 7% faster clock for clock against 2mb or maybe only 1mb chips or something like that. I forget the exacts and if that was gaming or average of a bunch of stuff.

In any case I expect to see this in a lot of lower end pre-builts since quad core looks really impressive on a best buy product tag.

But that's 512mb per core then, which is pretty horrid considering how some programs are really cache intensive

 

[philbar71]

basically this is like 2 celeron dual core slaped on a single chip. the q8200 is 2 pentium dual core's e5200 on the same chip and the q9300 is 2 e7200 on the same chip and the q9550 is like 2 e8400's on the same chip. intel has a way with thier quads.

 

[wafflehammer]

can't argue though...<$150 for a quad is a nice deal....especially if you have a low end computer but do a lot of multitasking

 

[philbar71]

true,but wouldnt a faster dual core, like e7200 or e8500, be better?

 

[Poizen22]

true,but wouldnt a faster dual core, like e7200 or e8500, be better?

yep, because multi tasking takes alot of cache in the first place.