Would like to pick up a quad core Penryn but not too keen on $1,100 price tag for the QX9650 that is currently available. Anyone have leads on future pricing changes, etc? Did some googling with nothing solid . . .Thanks,Noel

Noel there is a few cheap quad and dual cores coming out THIS YEAR.I think you should get the E8500 at 3.17GHz it can overclock to 4.7GHz on air.

I just did some googleing and i found that some sites are already selling the E8500 for about 300 US.

Isn't one of the main diff between your 9650 and the E8500 is that the multiplier is unlocked on your 9650? How much of an issue is that? Which one will give the best overclock given DDR2 or 3 ram?Noel

Those waiting for the big O/Cs promised by the Penryns might want to carefuLLy paroooze Anandtech's conclusion in their article, "The Rules have Changed." http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel...doc.aspx?i=3184These new CPUs are performance limited by a new means. A CPU clock increase from 4G to 4.4G no longer means a 10% increase in processing power. Consider how long you'll need to wait for what you'll actually be able to achieve. The rules have changed.But one rule hasn't changed, yet. Leave DDR3 alone, for now.

I read that article Sam, and read some other benchmarks, and I'm not sure how valid Anand's points are. For example, when you take non-gpu limited benchmarks such as low res Commanche 4, you see a % for % increase in FRAME RATE: an overclock from 3000mHz to 4250mHz (aircooled 9650) represents a 41% increase, and frames up from 139 to 196, a 41% increase. Check out this link for actual benchmarks and tell me what you make: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware...0_penryn_reviewFurther, from Anand's article, you can see several of the benchmarks DO in fact scale predictably:"CINEBENCH R10 is another benchmarking program that performs radically different under both Windows XP and Vista. The developers at MAXON have done a tremendous job optimizing the code for 64-bit computing and it shows - unlike the graphics testing performed above, we find Vista maintains a clear advantage. As we can see, CINEBENCH R10 scales beautifully with additional cores and increased frequencies." 46% increase in benchmark for a 46% increase in clockspeed. There are others on the Anand report. I guess they are saying the issue happens with SUSTAINED full load situations. Kind of odd though so who knows.

I think Anandtech was talking about a new method of CPU thermal protection. It appears Intel has built-in a stutter-maker. Everything was fine up to about 4.2Ghz. but then the CPU began to exhibit some strange behavior. One of the cores begin to skip cycles. The clock speed remained unaffected. These momentary core shutdown events would have the effect of thermal limiting. Benchmarks will experience 'soft walls.' The clock's relationship to work-done will not remain at 1:1. It will reduce.We'll have wait and see. It's different and we're not used to looking for it.

The clock speed remained>unaffected. These momentary core shutdown events would have>the effect of thermal limiting. Yes I agree with your interpretation of Anand's article. I would also point out that while clock speed remained unaffected (that seems odd!), and power consumption went up dramatically when clock speeds were amped up, frame rate is where the rubber meets the road and for the modest overclocks to 4.2 to 4.4Ghz (not really so modest!) benchmarks consistently showed *up to* an equivalent proportional increase suggesting at least the 9650 benefits pretty much very well from overclocks in this range. I am very happy with my 3.06 northwood running at 3.45 on air cooling which represents only a 14% boost. What I'm not sure of is just how well can that sort of perf boost be maintained under full load conditions with the neo benchmarks. I didn't read the neoseeker article in detail so maybe they commented how they did their benching. It also appears having the unlocked multiplier could be useful for fine tuning this increase, tho OMG the cost of them is so steep. I'm sort of tempted to splurge and buy a QX9650 though geez it seems foolish economically. If I could get a reliable 30% overclock on Penryn I'd be tickled pink. So, DDR 2 then eh? I notice the Anand testbed involved an Asus P5E I think which is DDR2. What is the next best choice versus QX9650 in a penryn or other? How important will the multiplier lock/unlock be?

As always, Intel's most expensive CPU really does perform the best . . . but also, (as always) the cost to performance ratio is outrageous.I'm coming from a that same P4 CPU. I always try for a 10X increase when I build a new system. I'll pay ~$250 for a cpu and ~$150 for a mobo. A Core2 quad at 3.6Ghz is a 10X from any P4. That performance increase had been available since 2006, but the cost was at Intel's (outrageous) top notch. When the Q6600 finally hit my number, I hitched up. How will the Q6600 fare going forward? Right now, we can get a 10% performance increase (the Q9650) for a 400% price premium. That pretty well defines a typical Intel, top-dog price premium. I really wish I had more dollars than sense.The next gen will be the Nehalem. That CPU will only provide a 10% (to 25%) clock for clock performance boost over the the Core2 design. The only possibility for a important performance increase is more cores. Let's say in late 09 they release one with 8 cores. In 2 years, I'd say my Q6600 was hanging in there pretty well. It is still "just" bested by 2X. Will I spend $1000 on a CPU to get only a 2X? No way (but I've Only got 8X to go!)I may end up re-wedding at 16 cores, but at only the right price. That move from the P4 to the Q6600 was magic. It really was a 10X hardware bump. I'm completely ready to take advantage of the software guys as they figure out multi-core applications. I got that 10.0X for $250. Now it's suggested that an extra 0.1X should be worth an extra 400% in cost? That's hard to get.

The other question I had was re the multiplier lock issue. Does the Q6600 have an unlocked multiplier? I see the upcoming Q9550 is locked at 8.5x. What are your insights on these issues Sam? My timeframe is within the next 2-3 months to order parts. Perhaps Q9550 will be around $550 so this is an option for me. With this memory I should have no troubles from the memory at least for an overclock to say 4GHz, do you think:Corsair XMS2 4GB DDR2 SDRAM Memory Module - 4GB - 1066MHz DDR2-1066/PC2-8500 - Non-ECC - DDR2 SDRAM - 240-pin DIMM - QUAD2X4096-8500C5DF This sells for $383 and seems to have plenty of headroom for a Q9550 with its locked multi, yes?Thoughts on 32 v 64 bit OS, etc? Is Vista now a decent platform for FS and all my other older 32 bit games? COD, Tiger Woods PGA 2004, etc. I probably will have to stick with 32 bit since I have older 32 bit apps? Don't know much about that area.I am keeping my Lian Li case, my 4 15K.x SCSI drives.I am also intrigued by ATI's 3870 in crossfire mode. Thoughts? I find IQ superior with the ATI 1950 Pro I have now vs two diff Geforce cards I've witnessed on my display, a 6800GT and a 7800GS.Thanks for your insights Sam . . .

The Q6600 has a locked multi at 9. We aim for a 3.6Ghz O/C. This works out just right. A 400mhz FSB x 9 (multi) = 3.6Ghz. DDR2-800 ram (aka PC26400) is rated to run at 800mhz. Once again the math works out just right. 2 (DDR or "Double Data Rate") x 400 (FSB) = 800 (DDR2-800's rated speed).The Q9550's 8.5 locked multi is a huge disadvantage. The CPU might be able to go to 4.0ghz, but the FSB will be "on the edge" to drive it that far. It will take a 470mhz FSB to get that Q95 to 4.0Ghz. We will never have a mobo that is 24/7, reliably stable at 470. Any P35 is fine, 24/7 at 400, but anything above that is asking for trouble. That means the Q9550 is FSB limited at the about the same 3.6Ghz CPU speed as the Q6600. (423 x 8.5 = 3.6. I think you'd be OK at 425, but No More). However to get that last bit, the FSB has to go to 425. That means you will now be running beyond DDR2-800's rated speed (425x2=850). Some DDR2-800 ram will run faster than its advertised speed (O/C), some will not. To make sure, you need to get DDR2-1066 . . . and that's more expensive ram. The alternative is to settle for a 400mhz FSB and a (400x8.5=) 3.4Ghz clocked Penryn. Is Penryn's Vail of Hype beginning to slip away? The question then becomes, why bother with this Penryn at all? There is no reason, really. Get the cheaper solution. That's a Q6600 with DDR2-800 ram.Stay away from Corsair. It has no headroom. Patriot, A-Data, Crucial are cheaper and have headroom. For instance, my 800mhz Patriot runs at 960. But that was just for fun. O'Cing ram makes no performance difference. $350 is crazy for 4 gigs. I see it for 100 all the time. Anything called DDR2-800 will run at 800mhz. Timings are meaningless relative to RW performance. You are going for a 24/7, stable 400mhz FSB with DDR2-800 ram running at 800 mhz. In other words, get the cheapest DDR2-800 ram (with a lifetime warranty) you can find. I had a pal go for 8 gigs (with Vista 64). This stuff is never going to be cheaper. Its a magic moment for ram too. In two months, Nvidia will have the 9800GTX2. That'll be 2 8800GTs on a single card. It'll be a cleaner dual GPU solution. I hesitate to recommend ATI. They are really struggling right now . . . but don't write them off quite yet. However for current builds, Nvidia's the one right now. BTW, I'm running Vista 64 and all's well. Those silly Out of Memory events are strictly a 32 bit op system, issue. I have lots of monitors and am considering a 1Gig Vcard. That much video memory would be tempting fate on a 32bit operating system. That 9800 will be equipped with 512 x 2 DDR3 memory. It's sounding interesting. They say FSX can't use 4 cores? That's utter Nonsense! I'm running Megascenery LA right now. The scenery loader has my Q6600 @3.6Ghz, all 4 cores, banged hard against the 100% stop. I need MoRe cores, right NoW!

Hmmm. Definitely there is better bang for buck. Here are some projections of the Q6600 vs Q9650, the former running at 3.6GHz, the latter at 4.25GHz, assuming a 35% increase on the Q6600 and a 41% increase on the Penryn (arguably iffy perhaps):Q6600 Sandra MMFP: 254,704 Q9650 Sandra MMFP: 194,895 Q6600 PCMark 2005: 13,692 Q9650 PCMark 2005: 10,466 From these two CPU more single core tests it would appear there is about a 25-30% increase overall. Alot of bucks to pay for this, tho adding another 25-30% over your current machine's performance IS significant for sure. Put another way, 25% of your current PC's performance is still 250% of the horsepower of your last PC, which is highly visible and super significant. I guess it all comes down to how much money you want to . . . . throw at it!I'll take a deeper look at your recommendation and go from there. Since I too plan on keeping my machine until there is a 10x or more incentive, there is some temptation to splurge and not look back, and take the best offered today. Part of this rationalization comes from the fact my first PC was this guy:486 33MHz8 mb of ram4x CD romSB sound card120mb HDD15" color CRTGrand total in ~1992 dollars: $2,400!!!!So, forking out today's inflating $$ for this sort of horsepower isn't so bad when you look at it this way!Noel

Then, at some point after those years of saving, an (actually quite difficult!) adjustment needs to occur to embrace a new philosophy . . . "If not now, when?"Go for it.

Sam, at what point could we expect QX9650 come down in price any meaningful amount? Seems to me X processors don't come down in price very fast if ever.On your ATI concerns. What do you base this on? The 9800GTX2 seems to not offer the kind of horsepower one would expect doubling up the cores as SLI? 30% increase, that seems very poor for this! Truthfully, I have been very happy with the ATI I just got, a 1950 Pro AGP. IQ is superior to both the nV6800GT and 7800GS by a very visible margin, especially in non-native screens, including POST! I'd hate to go backwards in IQ, esp since crossfire 3870's should deliver more frames for anything coming along at the screen res I use, 1600x. I remember going thru this years ago when I went from a TNT2 to a Radeon 9700 Pro when IQ was so much better with the ATI card, tho driver instability was awful. The BFG6800GTOC was flawless for driver stability, but IQ was not as *clean* as this 1950 I have now. I reinstalled a new 7800GS and IQ again deteriorated.

Yeah the top models with the unlocked multiplier dont really come down in price too much. As to ATI image quality, that was surpased by Nvidia with the 8 series cards, on which the filtering is nearly perfect. According to the benchmarks ATI cards are consistently slower in FSX than Nvidia card, which is strange considering its CPU bound. For that reason I would avoid ATI cards.