Until now, if you wanted something in a six-core from Intel, the 980X was the only flavor of the day. However, we just got in a sample of a new 32nm Gulftown-based Core i7 six-core that is slotted for a somewhat more palatable price point of $885. Clocked at 3.2GHz, the new Core i7 970 will afford you a bit more financial breathing room, if you're hankering for that step up to what is arguably (or perhaps not arguably) the fastest X86 desktop chip architecture around currently.
We've got the rest of the speeds, feeds and performance details laid out for you here on the following pages. You want Core i7 six-core goodness? Intel is sweetening the pot just a little more for you.
Intel Core i7-970 Processor Review, Lower Cost 6-Core
Weak sauce... no X, no play.
Seriously though, I wish this had been out when I upgraded my desktop. Would have saved me a hunny.
Smooth Creations LANShark "Blue Flame" + ASUS G73JH-A2 + ASUS EeePC S101H
"I frag therefore I am!"
on the cinibench r11.5 bench graph, it says lower scores = better performance, listing the phenomm II 965 with the lowest score and the 980X with the highest. this is a typo, no?
I would love to have one of these CPU's, but if I saved 800 for one, I would probably just go all out and get the 980X
i7 950 - ASUS Rampage 3 Extreme - ASUS GTX 570 - AZZA Hurricane - 6 GB Corsair 1600 - Corsair AX750 - WD 1tb black Thank You HH!!!!!!
AMD 1090T - MSI 890FXA-GD70 - XFX HD5850 x2 - CM Storm Scout - 8GB Kingston HyperX 1600 - Corsair HX850 - Sammy spinpoint f3
That was a typo---good catch. Thanks. Fixed.
Marco ChiappettaManaging Editor @ HotHardware.com
Follow Marco on Twitter
Nice CPU, but still not affordable enough for allot of us. Intel's less costly Quad-Cores seem to provide plenty of goodness for enthusiasts living on a budget.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
I don't know about the justification here of Intel's R&D as making the prices on this chip justifiable. It seems to me that while performance wise AMD's 6 core is under the Intel variant score wise, that I could probably afford a dual 6 core CPU and board for the same or lower price. Then on top of that 8 core is already out in the commercial market, and will soon be so on the consumer market.
I do not know exactly where AMD is going with there Bulldozer architecture either, but imagine it will be above the current processor's performance range as well as energy usage and heat wise as well. So if I could buy 2 of AMD's corporate 4 or 6 cores, and afford a board for either as well as at least double the general memory capacity at the same or relatively close price line why would I not? I imagine either would outperform a single Intel 6 core with either 8 or 12 at most likely a lower price.
Either way just as I have previously pointed out many times almost none of the software currently makes use of even a quad core processor completely now either. Yes a network can utilize multiple cores, some art, architecture, and accounting software can too. But really most software besides an OS can barely make use of 2 cores very well. Believe me I am not saying advancement in technology is pointless I am just saying I think Intel is over capitalizing there 6 core chips, where is the 650 dollar six core 920 variant???
rapid1:where is the 650 dollar six core 920 variant?
It's in "too high of a price still" land.
AMD makes a Hex-Core for a decent price,.............good enough for me too.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms