http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/ Engadget Comments for Intel Core 2 Quad S-Series shaves power consumption to 65W http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
"While the Q8200 costs $163, the Q8200S has a $245 price tag. The price difference between the Core 2 Quad Q9400 and the Q9400S is $101. The Q9550S top model is only $52 more expensive than the regular version."

Hmm.. I guess they'd output less heat and draw less power, so would the price hike be worth it?]]>Mar 29th 2009 10:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/It also means less heat will be dissipated, so cooling will be more effective.]]>Mar 29th 2009 11:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/]]>Mar 29th 2009 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Over here in this place electricity costs around 5 times as much as it is in most of the US incidentally, that's with tax - which now stands at (no kidding) about 110% or more on top of the price of the actual power.
But still, the quiet is what's nicest.
]]>Mar 29th 2009 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 10:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Engadget, you are LAGGING so freaking much.]]>Mar 29th 2009 10:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
Look, we are probably 6 month to a year away from government starting to look at the efficiency of home electronics and appliances.

Do the best you can before the government gets in on the act.]]>Mar 29th 2009 11:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
You jerks should be thankful. You would all be working had it not been for Jesus.]]>Mar 29th 2009 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
and were both going to hell...

p.s hangover plural? wtf]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
I'd appreciate it if you didn't include me in your mockery of our Lord.

...and I'm not lazy. I just have a very relaxed nature.]]>Mar 29th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
mystery solved.]]>Mar 29th 2009 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
I come from a proud family of alcoholics, i had to choose which i wanted to associate with...]]>Mar 29th 2009 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
]]>Mar 29th 2009 11:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 11:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
um people used to say things like , what will you need an entire gig of ram for. why do you need millions of colors when thousands work just fine. why do you need a wireless mouse when you're so close. dial up gets you where you need to be just fine.

the answer to your question. STFU GRANDPA!!!!!]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/#2 Multitasking : I do play Games Sometimes that use both cores to full~ Extra Cores = Smooth MSN/browsing with External LCD
#3 Faster Decoding/Encoding for Videos "Takes forever to convert those HD files for the PS3 for playback
#4 A reason to upgrade : Jumping from Dual 2k to Dual 3k is not much of a boost compared to the 2.83 Quad that doesnt cost much 300$
#5 many games is already starting to take advantage of quad core = smoother gaming and higher frame rate
#6 Future Proof : Why not buy Quad if its available and cost the same as duo? "From the Link posted at engadget the new Quads is capable of running on any Core 2 duo machine "Of course with optimization "

Want more? there is always more reasons for quad Core unless you only browse and listen to music grandma]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
1. 15" notebooks are the bottom of the barrel, i should know, i'm writing this on one now. the best HW goes in to smaller or larger books. Show me one 15" system that has the screen quality, resolution, storage, ram and fsb, to do real editing and I'll show you the 17" system you could have gotten for less money.
2. what game leaves enough time for browsing while using the majority of 2 whole cores? seriously what game?
3,4. gonna combine these two, saying a cpu only costs $300 but using a ps3 for your media needs tells me that your parents are subsidizing your hobbies, as does your choice of screen names. I don't have time to convert files, I just run them on a pc connected to my tv.
5. very few games take advantage of 4 cores better than they would a faster clock.
6. future proof, in computing? Ok maybe a little, buy an i7.
]]>Mar 29th 2009 1:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/im using a may 2007 macbook with 2.16 4gb ddr2 and a 320 7200rpm hdd. all aftermarket parts (fuck apple tax). now....converting a typical avi movie about 700mb takes on average 15-20 minutes. why not get it done in 5-10 minutes. dont even ask how long the dark knight blue ray rip took to convert. 14.5gb is slooow.

oh and oli d wanna respond? are you in fact a grandpa or are you a grandma as dr house believe.]]>Mar 29th 2009 1:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
you are a perfect example of someone who doesn't know what is he talking about
I just want you to find me a A dual core that Edit AVCHD better than Quad Core, even the current 3.600 Dual Core 2 is outdone by the old dusty Quad 2.400 by a mile, some things is better on quad specially video editing with the right software

You can use external LCD for higher resolution when its needed ,however im fine with the 1680x1050 on my 15 inch laptop
And i decode videos for PS3 playback for my family they use the PS3 to watch there media, my 7 years old sister is not good with PC
your points is laughable you think dual is better than 4 and 2 is more future proof than quad lol yet you mention that only few games take advantage of quad Cores , People said the same in 2005 about dual core and look at us now 95% of the games released REQUIRE dual core

The Question is if Quad Core was available for laptops with decent size/heat/cost/etc WHY NOT, cause this article says its possible
Freaking Grandma]]>Mar 29th 2009 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Even if they converted instantaneously(?) it would still be a waste of my time.
I do like the fact that you paid the apple tax initially then replaced everything with off the shelf pc parts. Also, you're kinda proving my point about overpriced 15" systems.
As for TDK, 14.5gig, why didn't you rip the whole movie?]]>Mar 29th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
wow nerds always compensate for something. it was just an example. by the way you can go ahead and spend all your money on physical copies of everything. i'll save my money for things that i cant get online such as car parts and guitar stuff.]]>Mar 29th 2009 2:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/1. since we're talking about down the road, a decent video card is much more important for hd editing than a quad core cpu, I'd spend the money on that instead.

There are plenty of benchmarks and real world tests that show that with software that actually exists, a fast twin beats a slow quad, especially in gaming.

What I actually said is there is no such thing as future proof in computing, but I suggested an i7(a chip that happens to be quad core) as a start. English is obviously not your native language, so I'll chalk up the faults in reading comprehension to that.
Maybe teach your sister to use a pc, computers have gotten kinda important. I saw this cute little 4.5 year old on tv who can use windows live just fine.

ps. I'm only rude to people who start out rude, Granddaughter.]]>Mar 29th 2009 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
My sis can use a PC and check email/play flash games/msn with her friends , and im sure she got a brain unlike you, what she isnt good with is converting files to be viewable on the BIG TV cause she shouldn't even learn that at her age , why the hell should she watch her hanna montana on 18 inch desktop LCD when we have 56 inch LCD with PS3 connected to it

I wont give my 2000$ laptop with HDMI out to a kid to watch stuff, I'm happy with what i have and what i do
If you were saying Quad Core is expinsive or Quad laptops is heavy/big/etc then anyone might/will agree with you but you keep saying that we shouldn't update to quad cores even if it had the same cost/size/heat as the dual cores which is brainless, you are the fool here

You are a crybaby who happened to be jobless and poor and you are afried that your parents wont be able to buy you new quad core laptop, we get it ]]>Mar 29th 2009 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/I spent the money on a good tv, I'm willing to spend money on quality media to take advantage of it, though some of the new software floating around really makes a netflix subscription worthwhile.
I don't know, I stopped hanging out with musicians in high school, and stopped working on my own cars a few years later( can't stand gunk under my nails).
Speaking of compensating, you were the first to break out the "Look, I have other hobbies" line.

But in that vein, my point at the start was, the $100 extra for the quad core, is a few tanks of 100 octane, 5 months of netflix, or half the tax stamp on a suppressor.
]]>Mar 29th 2009 3:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
DR House, i suggest you

A) Buy a workstation laptop
B) Wait till mobile i7/i5
C) Get that leg looked at, you've been on that damn crutch for too long.

Jon, thanks for trying to defend an old deary, there's some good amongst you whippersnappers after all.]]>Mar 29th 2009 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 12:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/
For home uses, you probably need the price differential to drop more before you buy it if you're planning on buying it just based upon running costs.]]>Mar 29th 2009 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 7:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/intel-core-2-quad-s-series-shaves-power-consumption-to-65w/Mar 29th 2009 1:47PM