<span class="content" itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">&nbsp; In one breath Intel dramatically cut pricing on its Core 2 Quads. Intel&rsquo;s swift response was even faster than NVIDIA&rsquo;s after the RV770 launch. In the following breath however, Intel introduced new, lower power, and much higher priced Core 2 <nobr id="itxt_nobr_0_0" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 100%">Quad</nobr> CPUs. Enter the S-line.<br /> <br /> TDP binning is something that AMD has done for quite a while on the desktop. The e-suffix parts (e.g. Phenom X4 9350e) are lower TDP parts, sold at a premium, to those users who need lower power consumption.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> The Phenom X4 9350e and the 9150e are both 65W quad-core parts from AMD, while all of Intel&rsquo;s quad-core CPUs have been 95W. Unwilling to allow AMD any sort of advantage, Intel has finally responded with 65W quad-core offerings of its own. The difference here is that while AMD&rsquo;s 65W quad-cores are all significantly lower clocked Phenom processors, Intel&rsquo;s 65W chips are available at up to 2.83GHz.<br /> <br /> The Core 2 Quad Q9550S, Q9400S and Q8200S are all 65W TDP quad-core CPUs. They share the same specs as their non-S brethren. The only difference here is that instead of being 95W TDP parts, these CPUs can fit in a 65W thermal envelope.<br /> <br /> </font> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">The price premium for these new S-parts is huge. The Q9550S costs $103 more than the non-S, the Q9400S will set you back another $107 and the Q8200S is the most affordable with only an $82 premium. Note that in the case of the Q9550S and Q9400S you're actually more expensive than the entry level Core i7-920. </font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Intel achieves these lower TDPs by running at a lower core voltage. With a mature enough manufacturing process, which Intel&rsquo;s 45nm process is, it&rsquo;s quite possible to produce CPUs that run much cooler than average and on a lower voltage. CPU power varies with the square of the voltage, so any savings in voltage can result in a non-linear decrease in power consumption.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">Don&rsquo;t get too excited however. If you remember back to our review of the 9350e/9150e we found that the decrease in power wasn&rsquo;t worth the added price. Even Intel has come forward and told us that these are primarily OEM parts and not intended for the high volume enthusiast community. With Intel being honest in its intended purpose for these S-class CPUs we don&rsquo;t really have to do much to keep them honest, we just need to confirm the findings.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">To do this we took a subset of our regular CPU performance tests and looked at performance, power consumption and power efficiency. We measured total system power consumption at the wall outlet, which does admittedly lessen the impact of a lower power CPU but it should give us an idea of the real world benefit of these processors. If you want to see how the Q9550/Q9550S performs across our entire suite of benchmarks take a look at AnandTech bench, our new publicly available benchmark database.</font></p> <p itxtvisited="1"><font size="2">...and in case you&rsquo;re wondering, no, they don&rsquo;t overclock any better. Our Q9550S couldn&rsquo;t get any further than the Q9550 we used in our Phenom II review.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3505">Read more...</a></font></p> </span>