[Rumour] Core i7 970: non-extreme six-core coming in Q3 2010

Source: http://www.fudzilla.com/

Quote:

---

Only yesterday we have reported that Intel plans to launch the Core i7 970, here, and we can confirm that the CPU is real and that this is yet another six core.

Core i7 970 is not an extreme version but this six core will run at 3.2GHz. Naturally it has 12 hyperthreading cores and its QPI delivers 6.4GB/s. With the help of Turbo overclocking this CPU will be able to reach the 3.46GHz mark and it supports 1066 DDR3 memory.

The TDP is 130W, the same as with the 3.33GHz clocked Core i7 980X. The Core i7 970 should launch in Q3 2010.

---

This thing should be affordable! At least not much more expensive than i7 960 is now! :D

Very nice !:cool:

I don't believe it. So this would suggest is would be based on the Westmere using the 32nm process? Doesn't seem likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I don't believe it. So this would suggest is would be based on the Westmere using the 32nm process? Doesn't seem likely.

---

It will be the same 'old' Gulftown like in i7-980 Extreme (yeah, Westmere arch), just with a locked multi. Why's that unlikely? It'll be coming nearly 2 quarters after 980X.

I believe it. It only makes sense...

Release an EE model, wait months so that extreme builders buy it to have the best cpu on the block, then release a non-EE version to satisfy those who don't make 150K a year. :p:

so this will be like 500$ range?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech Dav

so this will be like 500$ range?

---

Around $500 I think, yeah... Wikipedia suggests $562, but not like it's a reliable source. :p:

Q3 is too late, and by then a 45nm 'old' Gulftown will become collectible Antique.

I don't get the point with a 45nm Quad so late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Q3 is too late, and by then a 45nm 'old' Gulftown will become collectible Antique.

I don't get the point with a 45nm Quad so late.

---

What are you talking about? This should be a 6 core, and Gulftowns are 32nm chips...

This contradicts TPU

Quote:

---

# Core i7 970 "Bloomfield": quad-core, LGA-1366, 3.33 GHz (turbo: 3.46 GHz), Q3, 2010
# Core i7 930 "Bloomfield": quad-core, LGA-1366, 2.80 GHz (turbo: 3.06 GHz), February 28

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

What are you talking about? This should be a 6 core, and Gulftowns are 32nm chips...

---

Last i head this is a :

Core i7 970 "Bloomfield": quad-core, LGA-1366, 3.33 GHz (turbo: 3.46 GHz), Q3, 2010, accordant to : Upcoming Intel Core CPUs Detailed .

Has this changed?

@ Sam_oslo
Westmere 6 cores are all 32nm MPUs. None of the current 45nm nehalem based chips will end up as 6 core chips(intel is a the limit of 135W TDP level with current 45nm quad XE model).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Last i head this is a :

Core i7 970 "Bloomfield": quad-core, LGA-1366, 3.33 GHz (turbo: 3.46 GHz), Q3, 2010, accordant to : Upcoming Intel Core CPUs Detailed .

Has this changed?

---

Depends on which rumour you believe. ;)
The one in the OP suggests it is a 32nm 6 core chip. And it makes more sense than 4 core 45nm chip if you ask me, especially if you check the release date.

I'm confused.. are you guys saying this a 6 core 32nm? In case this is good news, and i guess this rumor is more likely to be true, because a 45nm Quad in Q3 would be like a joke.

these are the rumours for now, with minimal increments

http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/new-i...d-on-march-16/

Core i7-930″ (Bloomfield, 2.8GHz, tb/3.06GHz) 2 / 28
Core i7-980X Extreme Edition?(Gulftown,3.33GHz,tb/3.6GHz)3/16 · “Core i7-980X Extreme Edition” (Gulftown, 3.33GHz, tb/3.6GHz) 3 / 16
Core i5-680 (Clarkdale, 3.6GHz, tb/3.8GHz) 4 mid-May during the month
Core i7-880 (Lynnfield,3.06GHz,tb/3.73GHz) 2010/Q2 · “Core i7-880″ (Lynnfield, 3.06GHz, tb/3.73GHz) 2010/Q2
Core i3-550 (Clarkdale,3.2GHz,tb/) 2010/Q2 · “Core i3-550″ (Clarkdale, 3.2GHz, tb / No) 2010/Q2
Pentium E6700 (Penryn,3.43GHz) 2010/Q2 · “Pentium E6700″ (Penryn, 3.43GHz) 2010/Q2
Core i7-970 (Gulftown,3.33GHz,tb/3.46GHz?2010/Q3 · “Core i7-970″ (Gulftown, 3.33GHz, tb/3.46GHz) 2010/Q3

Will be another quad with core bloomfield. With the new gulftown six-core as the extreme cpu, i7 975 will dissappear, so they launch a 970 like they did with 965/960.

Intel screwed themselves from a marketing standpoint by naming it the Gulftown EE chip as the Core i7 980x. Naming a gulftown part as a Core i7 970 would be utterly confusing, the part names would indicate the Core i7 975 being a better component while if the 970 is a gulftown it'd hands down be the better part. What a cluster:banana::banana::banana::banana: if true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Intel screwed themselves from a marketing standpoint by naming it the Gulftown EE chip as the Core i7 980x. Naming a gulftown part as a Core i7 970 would be utterly confusing, the part names would indicate the Core i7 975 being a better component while if the 970 is a gulftown it'd hands down be the better part. What a cluster:banana::banana::banana::banana: if true.

---

It was this "screwed" naming that made me to believe the first rumor about a 45nm Quad, but it is interesting to see if the naming is "screwed" or the rumor.

So this i7 970 is going to be the cheapest Gulfy we'll have(priced as of now)? No?

any word on single socket 6 cores Xeons coming on Q3 2010

For lower clock models there's always the Xeons regardless of what speed is released for desktop.

Also I thought Intel was going to use i9 for six cores, i7 feels like it is getting a little crowded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Intel screwed themselves from a marketing standpoint by naming it the Gulftown EE chip as the Core i7 980x. Naming a gulftown part as a Core i7 970 would be utterly confusing, the part names would indicate the Core i7 975 being a better component while if the 970 is a gulftown it'd hands down be the better part. What a cluster:banana::banana::banana::banana: if true.

---

When i think about this , Intel screwed themselves by choosing 9xxx as naming schema to start with. What would you call the next step ... like this new Core i7 980x then? a i7 1080?

Q2 2010 wow thats nice i hope its true i have not heard anything tough.

If its true it will work against the top end Thuban and chances are that the Thuban will not stand a chance from my experience with the i7 980X i am sure the i7 970 will be a killler :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

Also I thought Intel was going to use i9 for six cores, i7 feels like it is getting a little crowded.

---

Yeah, 'a little'... i8 or i9 would be nice IMO. Or at least i7 1xxx.

i8 or i9 wouldn't indicate a new socket?. What should indicate the next socket then? there is a tomorrow too.

Intel screwed themselves by choosing 9xxx naming schema to start with. They should start with i1 120 (instead of i7 920) and up ... . This naming is going to get Intel in trouble soon or later, unless they go for changing the "i", but isn't that the first letter for Intel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

Intel screwed themselves by choosing 9xxx naming schema, they should start with i7 120 (instead of i7 920) and up to stat with ... this naming is going to get Intel in trouble, unless they go for changing the "i", but isn't that the first letter for Intel?

---

Nah, they are sharing the naming strategy with Apple products! :ROTF:

so what exactly happened to i9?

i9 never existed.... :(

Also low end sandy bridge will probably be called i4 and the high end sandy bridge will be called i8...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koksy

so what exactly happened to i9?

---

Goos question, but maybe they got cold feet because they would run out of all digits and sit with no option for next generation/socket at all? and had to leave the "i"-brand for next step?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

When i think about this , Intel screwed themselves by choosing 9xxx as naming schema to start with. What would you call the next step ... like this new Core i7 980x then? a i7 1080?

---

I'd be ok with a 4 digit naming scheme. I do agree though they shouldn't have started with them 920-950-965 as the top.

Yep i liked the AMD name scheme so far. I mean using 1075T, 1055T and 1035T for Thuban is a good call and 960T for failed Thuban is also great since you may be able to unlock it...

AMD could have named Thuban as Phenom II 975 or 980 and added a T at the last, that would have totally confused people. I mean Phenom II 980T does not sound all that different from Phenom II 975. Intel on the other hand has confused everyone and telling the Intel i7 975 and the Intel i7 980X is gonna be hard for the avg person. :(

EDIT: Not only enthusiasts buy into such high end market...

With this kind of "screwed" naming scheme, the possibility for this bing a 6 core 32nm, increases. But it is still exiting to see the official specification.

im more looking forward to the 32nm i7 quads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

i9 never existed.... :(

Also low end sandy bridge will probably be called i4 and the high end sandy bridge will be called i8...

---

What's your latest update on sandy bridge undergoing some relatively painless performance-boosting modification or not? Lately Fuad's been claiming launch in Q1'11 (and pretending this means tick-tock is imperiled, rather than the obvious customers-hate-Q4-product-intros that Intel has talked about), so does that timing indicate anything regarding your claim, assuming it is true?

Intel never does this. They'll keep binning the Gulftown dies for salvageable chips until they have enough to justify a quadcore 32nm chip. Why release a quad Gulftown right now and cut into 980X sales?

I'd be slightly tempted to spend a bit more on a CPU if this is a 6 core 32nm chip with a frequency that high - if it were just another quad I'd automatically get a cheaper one. Not sure I'd be completely happy with myself for spending over £500 on a CPU though (since prices in the UK tend to work out much higher relative to US$).

Yep, Intel's naming scheme is pretty much screwed. If this chip exists, it would be stupid to call it i7 970 since its based on six cores and going to be faster than the i7 975. They should have added a different number scheme or drop the i7 name and called it i8 or i whatever.

This chip coming at Q3 2010? Thats too long, and I really want to get this 6 core chip as well, don't want to spend $1000 for an unlocked multiplier chip which is so not worth the price.

don't care about the name, call it poosy galore chocolate fun time chip for all I care, just hope it has a better IMC, want tri channel 2600+Mhz goodness. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

i9 never existed.... :(

Also low end sandy bridge will probably be called i4 and the high end sandy bridge will be called i8...

---

I don't think so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intel

Today the Intel Core brand has a mind boggling array of derivatives (such as Core™2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, etc). Over time those will go away and in its place will be a simplified family of Core processors spanning multiple levels: Intel® Core™ i3 processor, Intel® Core™ i5 processor, and Intel® Core™ i7 processors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intel

It is important to note that these are not brands but modifiers to the Intel Core brand that signal different features and benefits. For example, upcoming processors such as Lynnfield (desktop) will carry the Intel Core brand, but will be available as either Intel Core i5 or Intel Core i7 depending upon the feature set and capability. Clarksfield (mobile) will have the Intel Core i7 name.

So the key here is there will be a range of features and capabilities within the Intel Core family - our flagship brand representing the highest performance and the latest technology - but simplified into entry-level (Intel Core i3), mid-level (Intel Core i5), and high-level (Intel Core i7).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intel

This will be an evolutionary process taking place over time, and we acknowledge that multiple brands will be in the market next year inclduing older ones, as we make the transition. But overall this is a good thing, designed to make it easier and more rational over the long run.

---

They are going to call it i3, i5 and i7-XXXX (4 digit). Wanna bet? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justin.kerr

don't care about the name, call it poosy galore chocolate fun time chip for all I care, just hope it has a better IMC, want tri channel 2600+Mhz goodness. :D

---

:rofl:Hilarious
I'll take two when I upgrade if that's the case:up:

Damn you Intel! This delay in 32nm quads and Q3 i970 is selling me on a i7-980x (who cares about the naming scheme... we all know whats what around here.) Even in Q3 when an i970 comes out it will be their mid in their mid level i7 pricing slot ($500+ same as the 940, 950, and currently the 960.)

wheres the $36x priced Six-core?

Also, I have a Intel n7 380 12-core :rofl:

Anyways, it sounds like they should have started with i7 3x0 for the beginning, then use x0,1xx, 2xx for the other CPUs.

It is Intel`s marketing strategy: They launch Extreme Gulf which costs 1000$, and after that they launch non-extreme version which costs 500$. This strategy makes a lot of money for Intel for the last 2 years.:)

I wish Intel would release this "i7 970" at the same time as the 980x, because seriously the 980x will not sell well because of its expensive price tag which is BS, I mean, WTF a $1000 price tag for an "extreme" processor and they claim its "faster" than the standard CPU when its not, we all know we can overclock the lower CPU, I don't know why Intel is charging so much for a CPU that has an unlocked multiplier. Epic fail from Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

I wish Intel would release this "i7 970" at the same time as the 980x, because seriously the 980x will not sell well because of its expensive price tag which is BS, I mean, WTF a $1000 price tag for an "extreme" processor and they claim its "faster" than the standard CPU when its not, we all know we can overclock the lower CPU, I don't know why Intel is charging so much for a CPU that has an unlocked multiplier. Epic fail from Intel.

---

Because there are people who will buy them... and there are industries that will buy thousands more.

I think it's ridiculous but I've talked to companies tech departments, for some reason they really do sell...

6 cores of pure delight, me wants one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chrono Detector

I wish Intel would release this "i7 970" at the same time as the 980x, because seriously the 980x will not sell well because of its expensive price tag which is BS, I mean, WTF a $1000 price tag for an "extreme" processor and they claim its "faster" than the standard CPU when its not, we all know we can overclock the lower CPU, I don't know why Intel is charging so much for a CPU that has an unlocked multiplier. Epic fail from Intel.

---

That's exactly why Intel is releasing the 980x as the only 6 core 32nm, alone.

If Intel releases a cheap i7 970 at the same time (assuming that it is cheap, and 6 core 32nm), then nobody will buy the expensive 980x. Intel will get into the same mess as lat time when we all bought 920 and OCed it to 975 and above for 24/7 use :D.

But i agree, we need a cheap 6 core 32nm for us deadly people on earth too. It is more scary than fun to try killing a $1000 CPU daily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Intel screwed themselves from a marketing standpoint by naming it the Gulftown EE chip as the Core i7 980x. Naming a gulftown part as a Core i7 970 would be utterly confusing, the part names would indicate the Core i7 975 being a better component while if the 970 is a gulftown it'd hands down be the better part. What a cluster:banana::banana::banana::banana: if true.

---

As if they haven't already.....it should be plain and simple:
i3 = Clarkbar
i5 = Lynnfield
i7 = Nehalem
i9 = Gulftown

Why do they make things so confusing? :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miahallen

As if they haven't already.....it should be plain and simple:
i3 = Clarkbar
i5 = Lynnfield
i7 = Nehalem
i9 = Gulftown

Why do they make things so confusing? :shakes:

---

That could make sense.
However, I think Intel would go this route instead:
Nehalem family = i3 i5 i7 (odd numbers)
Westmere family = i4 i6 i8 (even numbers)

That would fit nicely into the tick-tock strategy. When Sandy Bridge comes it will have a new code name.

Lets hope intel gets rid of this "I" crap. I Know "I" for intel makes sense, but people associate that with crapple.

Maybe something creative this time around?

Video transcoding :eek2::eek2::eek2: made easy....er

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

Lets hope intel gets rid of this "I" crap. I Know "I" for intel makes sense, but people associate that with crapple.

Maybe something creative this time around?

---

Sure. I suggest "U". So we start with Sandybridge at U2,U3, U4...etc.

Then for the next arch, we start with Me2, Me3, ....

But seriously, would this be at the tail end of 1366 and if so, why not wait for the next socket which arrives not so long after?

don't care about 6 cores...cannot even load 4 @ full ....but i want 32nm for better OC...
and still no roadmap :'(

No roadmap .... so no real idea of when there will be more affordable 6 cores coming right ? Why are motherboards coming out with 6 core support now if you need to spend us$1000 on a cpu to use it ? Sure all the WR hunters will have them but us casual benchers havent got a hope.

:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

im more looking forward to the 32nm i7 quads

---

You and me both! :up:

Any idea when these are due ?

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etihtsarom

Sure. I suggest "U". So we start with Sandybridge at U2,U3, U4...etc.

Then for the next arch, we start with Me2, Me3, ....

But seriously, would this be at the tail end of 1366 and if so, why not wait for the next socket which arrives not so long after?

---

All jokes aside, this is why I haven't considered i7 with either 4 or 6 cores.

Does anyone know the life expectancy of lga 1366?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller

All jokes aside, this is why I haven't considered i7 with either 4 or 6 cores.

Does anyone know the life expectancy of lga 1366?

---

all I know is that it's longer than 1156

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam_oslo

When i think about this , Intel screwed themselves by choosing 9xxx as naming schema to start with. What would you call the next step ... like this new Core i7 980x then? a i7 1080?

---

Intel's naming convention makes about as much sense as entering a 1-legged man in a butt kicking contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

wheres the $36x priced Six-core?

Also, I have a Intel n7 380 12-core :rofl:

Anyways, it sounds like they should have started with i7 3x0 for the beginning, then use x0,1xx, 2xx for the other CPUs.

---

:ROTF:oh yeah only 12 cores you have ? my core T10 has 128 cores and 256 Threads and 6Mb per core also 768Mb total L3 cache :up::eek:runs thats nasty =) runs superpi 1M under 2 sec

:D my dream