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
aju - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Ok, the fastest Phenom is still not quite as fast as the Q6600. The problem is that the cost issues is really much larger than it is made to seem in the article. The review does not really figure the total system price into the equation. The exact parts listed in the review for the test AMD system with an Phenom X4 9850 would cost $864.97. The exact parts listed for the Intel system with a Core2Quad Q6600 would cost $1273.96. Were talking about a difference of $405.99 here. For that price difference, you could forgo the 8800GT and put in 4 Radeon HD 3870s in its place and have quad CrossFire for a total of $1314.94. That MSI board supports 4 PCI Express 2.0 slots. Then we would be comparing systems at a similar price point. I wonder if the Intel system could keep up on the games then.coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
The situation would not change dramatically if Intel was changed back to DDR2-800. Intel processors don't benefit significantly if at all from the extra memroy bandwidth.This is a performance of the processor without limitation of other components, not a price/performance article.
IvanAndreevich - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Can we have a bench with the Q6600 running the same FSB and clockspeed as the Q9300? Would be an interesting comparison.Schugy - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Seems like q'n'q 2.0 still isn't working as good as the specs on paper tell us.Nihility - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
I'm really disappointed by Intel's 45 nm Q9300.Doesn't overclock as well, less cache and only marginally better performance over the Q6600.
Intel is obviously holding back because AMD can't deliver. I am not amused.
The updated phenoms are nice and all but as an overclocker I'll have to pass on this entire generation from BOTH manufacturers. That and WOW does AMD get owned at the gaming benchmarks.
coldpower27 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
From an overclockers perspective yes, but what's not to like if your buying this product for stock performance, faster then the Q6600 with less cache, and much more efficient energy wise.The only chips that AMD and Intel sell that are geared toward overclocking in mind are AMD's Black Series, and Intel's Extreme Series..
They have no obligation to sell you cheap overclockable processors. If they do it's just very well a bonus.
Nihility - Friday, March 28, 2008 - link
From a stock perspective, it's more expensive than a Q9300 but offers marginal performance gains.I don't like marginal processor upgrades. It's a bad sign when a year later you get sold the same speed processors instead of something that is 50% faster. They could obviously be releasing these processors with much higher clock rates but they choose not to so they have that option to crank performance up another useless 5% if they feel like it.
I don't like being toyed with, can you blame me?
nubie - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Hot Damn! Now I am torn between a 45nm Intel and a Tri/Quad AMD.I guess I can afford to sit back and wait, but this is just awesome news, it seems for professional apps the AMD is actually a better value (well duh), I think the Opteron line will be in high demand, and it will probably be very competitive.
Finally, something that is nearly clock-for-clock competitive with Intel. Now if AMD can only get Dual-core models out in 45nm, then they might be able to compete on level ground in the mainstream segment.
I just don't know which to buy, I hope that the promised AM2 compatibility will finally be here, if not there will be a lot of unhappy motherboard owners (my DFI Infinity M2 sorely needs one of these.)
strikeback03 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
umm, they aren't really clock-for-clock competitive, and no one said they were. Depending on pricing they may be price competitive, but the Q9300 seems to hold a decent performance advantage over the 9850 in most tests shown.mczak - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What was the stepping of the Q6600 core used here? IIRC G0 had significantly lower idle power consumption, and somewhat lower load power consumption than B3.