Intel quitely released most anticipated six-core Core i7-970
Freq is 3,2 GHz and price 850 USD! Is on shelves in Europe now, here are german shops for example, price 835 EUR :mad:
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a524845.html
Intel quitely released most anticipated six-core Core i7-970
Freq is 3,2 GHz and price 850 USD! Is on shelves in Europe now, here are german shops for example, price 835 EUR :mad:
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a524845.html
Q6600 also launched at U$851, 3-4 months after -> U$530.... then U$266...
be patient :D
no...
this is the cheapest six core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-851-_-Product
An excellent way to piss off the first buyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
yeah, of course :)Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
Still nice to see it released, I think Intel will go with a lower clocked model later on rather than lower prices on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
...seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
q6600 was the first exclusive consumer quad, hence the price premium. this isn't the first intel hexacore, but it's still in the price territory of the intel extremes.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
but hopefully you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
mis-leading thread title ..... not the cheapest x6 on the planet
no, it was QX6700 (november 2006), priced at U$999... :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
Hm? The Core 2 Quad Extrme QX6700 came out before the Q6600, IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
Should have said : " Core i7-970 "cheapest" intel six-core on shelves around the world"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
We have six cores on desktop for under 200 bucks now. Oh and it can do 4Ghz on air too :)
the AMD force is strong in this thread :)
I was hoping for a second it was gonna be cheaper than that :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
Release price is too close to 980X :(
The title should be "cheapest 6C/12T" to avoid confusion
I still love my Q6600. Just sayin'
i might have to sig thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Splave
It's called common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splave
You don't make a thread claiming $850 is the cheapest hex core in the world when you can buy FOUR of them for that price.
What you call 'AMD force' I call not being a thick eejit
how much does an high end I7 4c cost ? yes an I7 965
I got my 980X for that price.... I thought it was going to be cheaper...
This is another class than AMD's offering, we shouldn't get carried away and mix them. It is a 32nm (with less power usage and heat), and has HT which makes it "almost" equal to 9C, and is faster at stock and will OC much higher too.
That said, this thing got more expensive that rumored/expected, and that's too bad. But the major reason for that is the lack of competition. AMD can't offer a competing CPU in the class yet. The price will hopefully fall when AMD moves to a 9-core 32nm CPU with higher frequencies and better OC-headroom.
Except folding people, can't really see why > 4 cores is required. The I7 920 November 2008 and now I7 930 since February 2010 is still being the best cost, benefit option.
Which is amazing btw :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
if your paying 1000$ for folding, why not with a nvidia gpu? wouldnt that do it with less energy and more speed? i havnt been keeping up
yeah, pretty much ahead of its time :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by NKrader
why I7 965 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
i7 920 will do the same for 280$
1.5 year late, 80$ less, same performance (1055@4GHZ VS 920@4GHZ).
too late, no real answer to intel's six core.
what do you guys expect it's a 3.2ghz part versus 980x 3.33ghz part, price will be close :)
Title edited and troll posts removed plus a little cleanup..
I see what you did there :rofl:, long live the magic 9th core!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
What is the practical advantage of paying this CPU 850 bucks over let's say a i7930 clocked to 3.2ghz in real life applications?
For example, for that money I can purchase another gtx480+SSD or two more SSDs and make my system feel much faster than simply upgrading to this CPU.
But now you've changed the title theres no need for the inverted comma's, I know that it's unfair to think that everyone on the forum would have a strong enough grasp of english to understand the poster was being ironic, but this shockingly bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
It's as if no one here has ever read a word english for anything but factual reasons, and any novel they've been subjected has been for a mark.
...even the Canadian. This place used to have a higher reading age I swear to god.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
And also don't forget the great Microcenter in store price.
Intel has been doing this for the last few years. Hasn't seemed to stop people from buying. Soon the i7 950 is set to drop from $562 to $294. I don't see folks digging out their pitch forks and torches just yet... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
i think he was talking about wcg which cant use nvidia gpu power, only cpu power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Argh, still expensive. I was hoping for at least half price like the 940, 950 and 960 but I guess not due to no competition.
If Intel do have a consistent naming scheme, then 975 should be faster than 970. Would like to watch how they're gonna play the numbering games.
you can't really count in the reliability of their naming system. they even recycled their processor names, for example, there's a conroe e6300 and a wolfdale e6300. confusing as hell to new guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper_sung
year and a half later and they bring out a 970, No need to get one as my 975 still will run better as its unlocked..
I am surprised that it isn't more in the $500-$600 range since it has a locked multi, hex core or not.
Totally agree, The amount of chips intel is increasing is crazy.. im gonna have to note them down if they keep it up lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
I hope this chip ends up at 500-600$ and then we get a cheaper 2.66ghz variant.
As you say, a 2.66-2.8Ghz for $400-500 should be enough. People will overclock the hell out of it anyways.
Btw, if you want a render farm, crunching or things like that, put 2 or even 3 X6 1055T(at same clock 980X is at least 30-35% faster than thuban, price is not correct) systems together and enjoy the power.
As soon as AMD can provide real competition, the prices will drop. Until then, Intel can and does charge premium prices for their premium cpus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
Seems AMD can only add cores to combat 2 year old cpus like the i7 920. AMD really, really needs a processor refresh, but I'm afraid as soon as that's done, Intel just rolls out another new line of cpus just quietly waiting in the wings.
Huminn, dont think so. X6 1090T is in mostly multithread aplications and benchmarks (Cinebench, wprime) good as i7 965. And dont forgot at price, power co. (Thuban in load is more lower). Dont fear, Zambezzi coming in +-1/2 year
Last time i read 2012 :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
If one really wants to render and for cheap, one could look at AMD's MagnyCours as a solution... You could buy 2 8-Core chips for less than $600 and a decent dual socket board (from both ASUS & TYAN) for less than $500 (single socket boards come for less than $300)... Honestly, it would make a better buy what with having a future upgrade path in Bulldozer which is to come soon... All you'll need is to update bios, before you slot in the new chippery...
Then again, i can't see a reason why Intel would price its chip at 3.2 Ghz much lower than the one at 3.33 Ghz. It would make it very hard for Intel to justify the price for 980X if the 970 was priced much lower. There would be people buying it (mostly OC enthusiasts and oh, we at Xtremesystems aren't the only customers for any company), i wouldn't deny that, but many would switch in for the 970, after having a looksie at the price. Now, looking at the fact that Sandy Bridge uses a different platform altogether, i'd not consider Intel to be a good buy, in the longer run. This is where AMD should be gaining in on Intel, but the Intel PR storm is so blinding, be it official, or the fanboys/ fangirls talking about it, it almost obscures what is logically a better option... It remains a better option nonetheless...
Johnny87au: No, im still convinced, Zambezzi launch will in 1H 2011 and some ES we will "see" maybe to end this year in some chinese forums :)
And costs much less........Quote:
Originally Posted by Splave
AMD's best offering performs the same as 2 years old 920, and costs more too!Quote:
Originally Posted by SubZero.it
But that's the technology of the past, and totally uninteresting. 32nm is the norm now, and that's why this thingy got so expensive, there is no competition in high-end desktop CPUs from AMD yet.
Its been the case for a while now even the old q9550 performs on par with current gen Amd quad cores , Intel have gotten ahead in the game and now all we can hope as consumers is that they get some sort of breakthrough and can get closer to Intel.
2 year old i7 cpu is still the king of the hill , 2 years in this buisness is a really really long time Intel is just going to milk their advantage and release tech according to their own strategy.
AMD offering is much better: value/$,value/watt
There are times I'm ashamed that I have Intel platform, like now when I hear people defending Intel monopolistic strateries and price policies.
About i7-970: 850$ funny joke. I'll stay 4c.
You are wrong, because value/$ is equal to value/value or $/$, and all of them are always equal to 1 :p:, I don't know what you are trying to say with value/watt? but Intel's 32nm has better performance/watt. When it comes to superior (without competition) high-end CPU, GPU, etc .., the performance/droller is not good. Because the competition (or lack of it) influence the prices for high-end components.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forin
I've already said this thingy got more expensive than expected. A superior high-end CPU, GPU, etc.. without a real competitor, has always a much higher price. It is not about Intel or defending their prices, it is just a fact and explanation about the role of competition.
It's not a shame to have a good Intel CPU, it is more shameful to accuse others. who are you referring to, and who is defending monopoly or high prices?
price is too high
i7 920/930 ~ X6 1055TQuote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
i7 950/965 ~ X6 1090T
More expensive? Really?
Maybe if we talk about superpi.
Another great chip!
Shame only a minority will be able to afoird one :(
*hugs Q6600*
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
But PII X6 @ 4GHz is not as good as i7 quad core at same clock in majority of cases
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/p...0t/table-3.png
I wonder why people compare AMD 6 core to intel 6 core ?
:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
Go buy 4 of them then? or by a 4core8thread 920 ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Test multitasking performance (two or more applications) and applications where data isn’t using aligned (most of them).
failed to show Nb speedQuote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
so bus speed bump on I7 930 has advantage there.
Even using linux, where the performance difference is minimal, there are noticeable differences in performance between the 1055T and the Core i7 920. Compilation time for software is still faster on the 920 (5-7%), and sequence alignment using indexing and a Wheeler-Burrows algorithm is still faster (about 8% or so, software is called Bowtie for those interested). The 1055T is no slouch for sure, but it isn't a complete 920 killer in every instance either. Programs I've coded do in fact run faster on the 1055T, but it all depends on what your doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Only the last 4 are the actual real workloads,2 of them being games with poor MT optimizations and the other 2 showing almost identical performance(where MT optimization is present and done properly).Remember that Nehalem core does have IPC advantage in single threaded applications,it varies from none to 15-20% but it's present.Nobody is denying that. One may argue this advantage is not that big(I'm the one) and it all boils down to price/perf./watt ratio. Basically you get 2 relatively evenly matched systems that each has its strong points.It depends on what you are using your system for and how much you get for the $ you pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Of course it isn't a 920 killer but in general you get more for same amount of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
Visual Studio does perform better on X6, compiling more than one project and more cores is good to have
dont wanna wade into the ol amd v intel fray at all, but i am seriously disappointed at the price point of this chip. i was expecting less. much less. i guess sandy bridge enthusiast class will be my first 6 (or 8) core.
yes...NB, performance of Phenoms.
We can not compare amd and intel on this 6 cores categuory.
Even if amd has a 6 cores, intel is far away with the HT technology.
The amd 6cores can be compare to the i7 920 ( HT on equivalent to 6 physicals cores on perf ).
We have to wait the amd HT to compare the same cores.
and still does not change the fact that its not cheapest 6core
why compare them if you clock them the same? do the test again @ stock... if you want to oc anyhow you can just order a T1055 and oc it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
then you will have to wait for a very very long time, perhaps never :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zelos
it doesn't matter if you make a design for ht or more cores, logic is much bigger on a core with HT then without, this is a development choice.
If current AMD would have the same IPC/ghz Intel would be in very bad shape....with or without HT. But we know k10 has lower IPC so it will be depending on BD, sandy is just again an enhancement, not a real leap forward, this was done with Nehalem.
Yea but that one will be absolute pants in comparison to the Intel offering. Even the i7s out already trample on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
At stock i7 930/860 match the performance of T1090Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
If you overclock them to the same clock, the i7 is better in most cases
Don't put too much hope on benchmarks, some of them are rigged (benchmarketing) by the compilers (intel), processors which doesn't carry the GenuineIntel cpuids' will be compiled to run in non-optimized code, thus the lower benchmark scores & performance in some apps. It's part of the anti-trust case against Intel.
Be an informed user and buyer.
http://www.vanshardware.com/articles...el_SysMark.htm
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/In...from_Compiler_
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/revi...o-review.ars/6
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...substance.aspx
How many benchmarks are run using the same cpuid for different brands of cpu?Quote:
In any case, it is relatively easy to test for CPUID vendor name string sensitivity. PCMark05, SysMark 2007 Preview, and Everest Ultimate are three benchmarks that have been affected by the vendor name string value that CPUID returns, but others exist.
Uh oh!, you're opening a can of worms. It's simple, really:Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
Run vendor agnostic benchmarks or even real world apps on linux and windows that have no such compiler code and the results are relatively same. :) If you're in doubt, check SPEC results for AMD vs Intel server processors, the results are replicated on the desktop. :yepp:
It's for those who believe the benchmarks so much. No one want to admit they've been had, but to have it done to them again and again begs the question : How does it feel to line up the coffers of those who cheats you? Read the latest Intel earnings report?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
And these are the smart and confident consumers, who advises others to be like them?
sheesh.
Hmmm? Again you have a point IF SPEC benchmarks were any different from all the review results we've been seeing. The issue you're raising has been beaten to death, do a search; besides, the salient point you're ignoring is that some of these things you call "cheats" are actually "optimizations" for optimum performance based on processor family capabilities. A crude example, you cannot 'tell' a P4 northwood processor to execute SSE 4.2 code when you don't know if it's capable of executing the code. So Intel uses flags to query each processor's id. and execute optimizations accordingly. So even some Intel processors get the same treatment as 'non-optimized-for" processors. These optimizations have to be tested and validated in Intel labs, etc. before they are implemented in code to prevent problems. Are you suggesting Intel labs should dedicate their time and money to optimize code for all rival processors in their compilers?And if Intel allows optimized code to run on rival processors untested, when a problem arises, who would provide support? Do you send your NVidia hardware software related questions to ATi for an answer? It's a complicated situation, over-blown, and misunderstood/misrepresented. Yet the answer is always there - test in a neutral environment and buy your hardware based on the results. Fair enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
This is a non-issue.
Oh please, don't pretend that AMD is a charity. This is what seriously derails Intel/AMD threads, IMO. The fact that many AMD fans believe that AMD is some kind of church run foundation, saving the earth or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
Intel offers a faster processor, period. BMW offers faster cars than Toyota, despite the huge price hike--people are still going to buy a BMW. Simple as that. You pay extra for a performance advantage.
Also, as OhNoes! stated, look at the SPEC benchmarks.
Here in Denmark, you can get a 1090T for the same money as an i5-750... That tells some of the story... AMD is currently not trying to compete with Intel on the pure performance of their products, we all know that Intel is, at current, faster... But it's hard to argue with the performance to price ratio of their current lineups, even if they ARE just trying to scrape by while Intel holds onto the crown like a greedy tyrant (not implying that Intel is a monopolistic cashhoarder, but they do run a business)...
Best Regards :toast:
$900 at newegg while 980x is at $999....
Listen for a minute:Quote:
Originally Posted by pokipoki
What gets lost here is that people are individuals with likes and dislikes and BOTH sides tend to close their eyes to facts.
There is a market for both companies.
I have both Intel and AMD here myself.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages and that is just plain how it is.
You buy what you like or what YOU perceive to best fit your needs in terms of cost and need and don't forget that "like" factor.
The problem comes in when people who "like" one brand can't get it through their heads that others may like the other guys product.
Why doesn't matter,it's that persons right to choose.
You have a good point there. Both AMD and Intel are doing good job, and we need both of them for a viable competition. Such a competition will push forward the technology and innovations, and keep the prices down too. It's all good for all of us that care about this technology. Nobody with interest for this technology needs to get rude, offensive or hostile in this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
The same is true for ATi and nVidia, but unfortunately there are few in this forum with too much brand-loyalty. Probably they have some other agenda and intensives, and maybe are getting payed directly or indirectly, I call them "PR-agents". Those few have a tendency to tempt others into an atmosphere of personal attacks, terror and fear to prove their own points. That's not the normal behavior for somebody who seeks to learn more.
Good moderators like you, with this kind of good attitude, should be more active with keeping those "agents" in shock. Most people are here to exchange ideas and learn from each other, but it is easy to fall for the temptations created by those "agents", and the rest of fightings will go by itself.
The hard part for me as a moderator is to distinguish between someone with passion for the products they like and someone with an "agenda"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
I tend to give a lot of leeway to people as I do understand passionate feelings.
Hell, had to change my Depends 6 times the day the SR2 board arrived and 10more just during the first day benching it!:rofl:
Then the day I fired up the dual MC system seeing 24 real cores was almost another entire package of Depends..
Thank God I buy them by the truckload!:ROTF:
bittech has a review on it now:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...7-970-review/1
from this sample, it reached 4.0ghz where as the EE did 4.4ghz with same voltage and setup. hopefully not all samples this weak =(
ive seen Frys and other e/re-tailers have the EE for same price as the 970 or even lower! so this is utter fail on intel's part. just crossing fingers this part will come down to about half price by x-mas....
i7 970 at stock speeds performed better than PII X6 1090T @ 3.87GHz in every single benchmark according to this reviewQuote:
Originally Posted by endlesszeal
And I really hope that Intel drop its price to $550 after few months just like it did with Q6600
I'm sure it will, I just hope it doesnt take too long...Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Then lower than $550, lol - and a lil longer. Come on Intel, for S1366's sake!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by labs23
I think Intel botched the pricing quite terribly on S1366. The 920/930, while nice, is still slightly overpriced and the 950/960 even more so. There is little benefit in spending more money on S1366 over S1156. I can understand a certain price premium, but I seriously cannot understand why Intel bothers selling the 950/960 at the price that they're asking for. For most consumers, it's either X58 + 920/930 or then they just jump down to a P55 + 860 (875K now).
the i7 950 will drop to u$294 at the end of august...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesker
seriously, will someone buy the i7 960 for u$560 after that?:confused:
they could EOL it, and put the i7 970 at that price range a few weeks later... lets hope..
theres also a rumoured i7 980 (non extreme) coming Q4...
wonder if there will be epic a0 ES 970s
My encoding rig is dying for this processor. But for that price it will have to wait. Wonder if this pricing scheme is designed to unload some EE's?
I thought it would have been like half of its launch price.