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
The Jedi - Monday, April 7, 2008 - link
I'm pretty much with you, but just to comment on this part:"As for price the q6600 is dropping all over the place... Frys had it for 180 yesterday, Microcenter has it for 200."
It's a common misnomer to see a sale price on something and then get it locked into your head that that price you saw one time is the price you should expect to pay for something from then on. For example if the company that rhymes with hell is advertising a PC with monitor for $299, even if it's THREE DAYS ONLY in the fine print, or like after rebate, people tend to get it stuck in their head that "a new computer" can be had for a mere $300, when a wiser person would know something that cheap would be like 3-year old tech/speed, likely with dead pixels and a 6-bit analog LCD panel, Windows Basic, stuff like that.
Companies sometimes have a sale on one thing hoping you'll buy items with it, which allows them to make money. Just wanted to throw that out there.
bigboxes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How old are you? What's with all this "ownage" crap you are spewing? Do you really tie in your self worth to the cpu you use (feel free to substitute car, house, salary)? Most of us mature individuals who have actually reached adulthood just want the best performance for our dollar, not ownage just to inflate our e-penis.Nice article.
RamarC - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
it's "funny" that anand forgot that the e6750 is $180 (not $266) and that the 3ghz oem e8400 (sans cooler) is in-stock and available for $200. the e8400 would certainly push a couple of phenoms lower on the chart.and it's also "funny" that anand's comparing projected phenom prices (since they aren't available yet) with real street prices. wait until you can get street prices before claiming a better price/performance ration.
Margalus - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
apparently you didn't read the article. The amd chip is not as good as intel currently, but they aren't crap.And if you read the article you would have seen that they still recommended and intel cpu for a new system, so it definately wasn't written with payola in mind from amd.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
We read it, cmon you didnt see any slant towards AMD? Come on, be honest :)And it sounded like they were about to cry when they recommended Intel (plus the long in the tooth comments geez, I mean really, Intels old crap sucks and should die but AMDs latest and greatest ALMOST beats Intels crap wow what logic, LOL). Hey I wish AMD were top dog again. I loved the Athlon XP's & 64's. But facts are facts....
hooflung - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Well look at it this way. Enthusiasts do not drive the market. System builders and servers do. AMD is able to bring competitive prices to the OEM channels and that will also translate to the server markets for the Phenom Opteron lineup.AMD is still largely competitive with Intel at the server level with the Phenom where TLB, the now strong point of the Phenom, is implemented better.
To keep your servers sponsored with a healthy company, IT departments will purchase desktop parts when refreshing hardware. It would be nice for AMD to be able to boast the crown but their company is still profitable, ie in business, by offering parts that sell well.
Also, its not wise to accuse Anand to being bribed. He's been saying this for a long time and he's enthusiastic that AMD is finally making good on their goals. Fanboi squat somewhere else.
michal1980 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
How is this NOT a fluff piece? A 'new' cpu (Thats only new because the first time around it had a bug) thats 4+ months late to the party.Is being beaten by processor that was launch over a YEAR ago.
In gaming the new processor has even been beaten by a X2 6400+!!!.
Thats CRAP. How old is that cpu?
and yet we get conclusions that this is more like the "Amd we're used to seing.. a competitive AMD"? Competitive excatly how? I'll grant you this will push intel to release there 45nm cpu's... But its not like intel is sweeting.
Futhermore, How can you come out and say the Q6600 is long in the tooth, when its better then the new stuff amd has on the market?
Long in the tooth because 12+ months after being released its faster then a brand new amd chip? long in the tooth because its easy to find one for 250, and on sale for less? Or just long in the tooth because It just beats the AMD right now, and doesn't whoop them by 20%+?
I'm standing by my claim this article is fluff/ BS . its written in a postive spin for amd.. When the AMD processor has clearly been beaten again/still.
Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I love how fanboys like to conveniently "forget" about the few years that AMD was dominating Intel in pretty much every benchmark when it was the Pentium 4 against the Athlon64.VashHT - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I don't get what you're saying, are you implying that phenom is competitive because A64 dominated the P4? Funny how you can call someone a fanboy when you're bringing up 2 processors that don't matter in the current market.Goty - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
You kind of have to read the previous post wherein the author implies that AMD has never been competitive, which it has been numerous times. My example was merely the latest and had no bearing on the current generation of products.