Multiplier of 7 = poor overclocking headroom

What's the point of this chip again?

Bah, a quad core without VT is useless. I'm pretty sure even lowly dual-core X2's support virtualization.

Sounds like "teh lose" I would rather get a Q6600 lower the multi to 8 set the FSB to 333 and have the same thing, minus the feature set loss and loss of cache.

Didn't I read somewhere that the 9450 might be dropping in price in July to around $266? In which case, the $60 difference between that and the Q8200 gets a lot more processor for the money. It seems that Intel's true intent is to totally phase out the Q6600 asap and replace it with the 8200. I suspect that it is all part of Intel's grand plan to completely move the processor fabs from 65nm to 45nm exclusively and gradually run down and obsolete stored wafer-inventory of all processors not having 45nm equivalents. Would no doubt free up 65nm capacity for chipset production, which traditionally has been one or two process-nodes back from the CPUs.

I'm not getting something here.

The only existing quads have 12, 8, or 6MB L2.

All the existing 45nm CPUs have multiples of 3. 3MB L2, 6, or 12.

The 65nm cores have 8MB/4/2/1MB.

Did Intel make a whole new core for this one value CPU, or did the article misunderstand and it's 65nm?

At that price id go with the phenom-and-a-mobo or a Q6600.

And for any more id want the faster clocks of the Q9300 or the Q9450

multiplier?

I'm confused, why would they use a 4mb L2 cache when the dual core 8000 series C2Ds have 6mb?

Sounds like a good value. I'll be interested to see how it matches up against the Phenoms in testing.