Q8000, E5000 - New budget Quads and Duals coming Q3

According to leaked roadmaps dated the third week of May and posted here and here at Expreview, we are going to be seeing the following value series showing up later this year:






Q8000: Quad-core, 45nm, 4MB L2, 1333 FSB, VT, TXT
E5000: Dual-core, 45nm, 2MB L2, 800FSB


E5000 series will replace the current E2000 series, receiving doubled L2 cache (1MB->2MB) as well as die shrink and architectural improvements gained from moving to 45nm process. Q8000 will fall into "200-300 price range" and looks to be 2x E5000 series chip stuck together. Both series are expected to emerge in Q3 of this year.

E5000 series looks to be a budget overclockers dream. Basically an E7000 series processor that gives up 1MB L2 to be priced in a lower class segment. Given that E7200 will drop to $113 in Q3, I expect the 5000 series to be priced well below $100. Q8000 series will be straddled with low multipliers resulting from 1333FSB and makes do with half the L2 cache of Q6600. So I'm not sure this will be such a huge improvement over the current Q6600.


No doubt these are Intel's answers to new cpus scheduled to be released from AMD later this year. AMD has confirmed it is still on track to release new dual cores in H2 08. 45nm revision of desktop quad-cores codenamed Deneb and Propus are also still set to be released in Q4. The Propus is especially interesting as it is the same chip as Deneb except that it is constructed natively without the 6MB L3 cache. This will give it a very compact die size, making it much cheaper and easier to produce. I would not be surprised to see quad-core Propus settle in around the $150 mark. Anyhow these AMD CPUs will no doubt be aimed towards the lower end of the market which should make for some interesting competition in H2 between Intel and AMD, at least in the budget segment

too bad the Q8000 series is using a 1333MHz FSB.

The Q8200 1333MHz FSB is probably 333 x 7 (2.33GHz). No cheap overclocking for me.

does you need to update bios in order e5xxx cpu to work properly ?

pxc said:

too bad the Q8000 series is using a 1333MHz FSB.

The Q8200 1333MHz FSB is probably 333 x 7 (2.33GHz). No cheap overclocking for me.

Click to expand...

Yeah 1066FSB would have been nice for us overclockers. I expect Q8200 to be 333 x 7.5 (2.5 Ghz). It is slotted in between Q6600(2.4Ghz) and Q9400(2.66Ghz). With Q9300(2.5Ghz) disappearing in Q3 it would make sense for Q8200 to assume the same clock speed.

rickyman123 said:

does you need to update bios in order e5xxx cpu to work properly ?

Click to expand...

Manufacturers generally are very prompt about releasing BIOS updates needed to support new CPUs so that shouldn't be a problem. And I would at least expect any P45/G45 mobo to work with these right out of the box.

whats everyone's guess on when 2180s will rise in price/disappear and prediction for E5000 prices?

I think 2180s were $60 at newegg and today I'm seeing them for $70. Microcenter has a price matching policy with them for awhile now and they currently are $60. They update prices tomorrow. Also, they had 2160s for $50 not less than two days ago. Those are gone from Microcenter's site

Looks like the E5000 is going to be the 45nm replacement for the E2xxx ?

looks that way to me, if these are priced like current E2xxx. i might jump on one. it'll have to have a good chance to hit 4Ghz though

cant wait for the e5000 series

Toaster Oven said:

Yeah 1066FSB would have been nice for us overclockers. I expect Q8200 to be 333 x 7.5 (2.5 Ghz). It is slotted in between Q6600(2.4Ghz) and Q9400(2.66Ghz). With Q9300(2.5Ghz) disappearing in Q3 it would make sense for Q8200 to assume the same clock speed.

Click to expand...

Digitimes quoted the Q8200 clock speed at 2.33GHz:

Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in the third quarter this year, supporting FSB up to 1333MHz, L2 cache of 4MB and a core frequency of 2.33GHz. Pricing will be set around US$203 in thousand-unit quantities. In order to separate the Q8000 series from Intel's Q9000 CPU family, the Q8000 CPU series will not support Intel's VT and TXT technology.

Click to expand...

Hopefully the price drops quickly. $203 isn't that great of a price.

pxc said:

Digitimes quoted the Q8200 clock speed at 2.33GHz:Hopefully the price drops quickly. $203 isn't that great of a price.

Click to expand...

Information in that Digitimes article conflicts with what Expreview reports and shows in the roadmaps they attained. Both in support for VT+TXT and expected price. Will be interesting to see who is correct.

Toaster Oven said:

Yeah 1066FSB would have been nice for us overclockers. I expect Q8200 to be 333 x 7.5 (2.5 Ghz). It is slotted in between Q6600(2.4Ghz) and Q9400(2.66Ghz). With Q9300(2.5Ghz) disappearing in Q3 it would make sense for Q8200 to assume the same clock speed.




Manufacturers generally are very prompt about releasing BIOS updates needed to support new CPUs so that shouldn't be a problem. And I would at least expect any P45/G45 mobo to work with these right out of the box.

Click to expand...

Toaster Oven, that seems to make the Q6600 (remember, 1066MHz FSB), the throw-weight champ among Intel's quads (especially since the pricing will actually head south of $200 with the Q3 price drops). Also, can't you *undercrank* the FSB?

Q8000 appears to slide between Q6700 (also due for a price drop) and Q9300.

That will put no less than five different quads between $175 and $300 (retail-boxed, at that) after the Q8000's launch. (Two Kentsfields, two Yorkfields, and one Yorkfield II: the Q8000.) The last time I saw a pricing spread this small from Intel was Northwood-C.

pxc said:

Digitimes quoted the Q8200 clock speed at 2.33GHz:Hopefully the price drops quickly. $203 isn't that great of a price.

Click to expand...

The only reason that it doesn't seem that great of a price is due to fire-sale pricing of Q6600 (which, unlike Q8200, supports VT). Absent all those leftover Kentsfields (both Q6600 and Q6700), Q8200 would actually be Intel's lowest-priced quad-core (especially at that $203 tray price).

Also, how much honest demand is there for VT on the desktop? Though there is high demand for VT in the server closet, and despite that desktop VT support has actually gone mainstream, other than *hobbyist* VT desktop usage, where's the real push for it? (Remember, like Phenom on the AMD side, Intel's multicore desktop CPUs are actually server CPUs in desktop clothes.)

Current Q6600/Q6700 pricing should be treated as what it is: a fluke. Once all those Kentsfields finally Go Away, Q8200 will become the new bottom-end quad-core from Intel (likely with a new round of price cuts in time for Yule).

PGHammer said:

Toaster Oven, that seems to make the Q6600 (remember, 1066MHz FSB), the throw-weight champ among Intel's quads (especially since the pricing will actually head south of $200 with the Q3 price drops). Also, can't you *undercrank* the FSB?

Click to expand...

It does appear that Q6600 will remain a strong contender for best budget quad if these rumors do pan out. Yes everyone is already acutely aware of the difference in FSB. Q6600 official price will only drop $21 from $224 to $203 in Q3, not quite below $200 just yet. By itself I don't expect that to have much effect on retail pricing which is already below that level. Pressure from Intel's own Q8000 series and any price cuts or new releases from AMD will probably have more of an effect.

And no, you can't "undercrank" the FSB without affecting CPU speed unless you have an unlocked multiplier, which you'll find only on the Extreme CPUs.

Q8000 appears to slide between Q6700 (also due for a price drop) and Q9300.

That will put no less than five different quads between $175 and $300 (retail-boxed, at that) after the Q8000's launch. (Two Kentsfields, two Yorkfields, and one Yorkfield II: the Q8000.) The last time I saw a pricing spread this small from Intel was Northwood-C.

Click to expand...

Your info isn't correct. Both Q6700 and Q9300 as well as Q9450 will reach EOL and disappear come Q3 so they won't be competing at all. Only 3 Quads will compete in the sub $300 range. At the moment we know the following will be available come Q3 with these prices:

Q9650 - $513
Q9550 - $316
Q9400 - $266
Q8200 - $???
Q6600 - $203

I can't say I find myself sold yet on the information Digitimes presented. Putting Q8200 at the same price point as Q6600 while underperforming doesn't make sense. Especially as Q6600 is slated to last till at least the end of Q4. All Phenoms including both X3s and X4s support VT so Intel would be giving up a considerable feature advantage by doing so. If that information does turn out to be true, I would hope Intel moves the price of the Q8200 down a couple of notches.

Is it a safe assumption that the Q3 9400 will outperform the current 9450's?

Well Q9400 will be a bit slower clock for clock than Q9450 in some apps due to reduced L2 cache. On the other hand Q9400 should be introduced with R0 stepping which may overclock better than C1 stepping Q9450. So guess we'll just have to wait and see

i want wondering what does VT and TXT do in the CPU?

rickyman123 said:

i want wondering what does VT and TXT do in the CPU?

Click to expand...

VT is hardware acceleration for virtualization, used in programs like VMWare. http://www.intel.cc/technology/virtualization/index.htm

TXT is a type of security/protection/DRM, the big boogeyman that people were using FUD against Intel, strange because AMD has a similar technology called Presidio, and both are used in a "trusted environment". You won't need it since few retail motherboards have the necessary hardware to use it. http://www.intel.com/technology/security/downloads/TrustedExec_Overview.pdf

PGHammer said:

Current Q6600/Q6700 pricing should be treated as what it is: a fluke. Once all those Kentsfields finally Go Away, Q8200 will become the new bottom-end quad-core from Intel (likely with a new round of price cuts in time for Yule).

Click to expand...

eh that sucks. better pick up another q6600 soon!

Toaster Oven said:

It does appear that Q6600 will remain a strong contender for best budget quad if these rumors do pan out. Yes everyone is already acutely aware of the difference in FSB. Q6600 official price will only drop $21 from $224 to $203 in Q3, not quite below $200 just yet. By itself I don't expect that to have much effect on retail pricing which is already below that level. Pressure from Intel's own Q8000 series and any price cuts or new releases from AMD will probably have more of an effect.

And no, you can't "undercrank" the FSB without affecting CPU speed unless you have an unlocked multiplier, which you'll find only on the Extreme CPUs.




Your info isn't correct. Both Q6700 and Q9300 as well as Q9450 will reach EOL and disappear come Q3 so they won't be competing at all. Only 3 Quads will compete in the sub $300 range. At the moment we know the following will be available come Q3 with these prices:

Q9650 - $513
Q9550 - $316
Q9400 - $266
Q8200 - $???
Q6600 - $203

I can't say I find myself sold yet on the information Digitimes presented. Putting Q8200 at the same price point as Q6600 while underperforming doesn't make sense. Especially as Q6600 is slated to last till at least the end of Q4. All Phenoms including both X3s and X4s support VT so Intel would be giving up a considerable feature advantage by doing so. If that information does turn out to be true, I would hope Intel moves the price of the Q8200 down a couple of notches.

Click to expand...

I am aware that Q6700 is due to be EOL in two months; I was thinking strictly in terms of presence in the channel (after a certain point I expect that any Q6700s will be re-binned as Q6600s merely to get them out of Intel's fabs, let alone the hair of their salespeople). Q6600 is seeing the pricing that it is at retail largely because it didn't sell all that well (either as a XEON or as a desktop CPU); Q6700 was almost twice as expensive, and thus likely sold even slower. The reason why Q8200 likely won't move in price is that it is intended to *replace* Q6600 in the pricing matrix; any price slashing likely won't happen until all Q6xx0 inventory is well and truly depleted (other than replacement inventory).
Q9450 is in the same situation that Q6700 is in (due to Go Away in two months); like Q6700, the re-binning of the unsold/unspoken-for CPUs as lower-speed (Q9400, most likely, with some shunted into the replacement channel) parts has already begun. The impact on Intel's revenue numbers of the Great Kentsfield Fire Sale doesn't sound like much unless you compare them with typical Intel revenue figures (especially in terms of revenue per CPU). Intel does *not* want a repeat of this with Yorkfield, soft economy or not.