6 Cores. 12 Threads. Say Hello to Intel's Gulftown!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Abrahm

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2007
369
0
18,780
0
Looks awesome. I'll be waiting until a more reasonably priced non-Extreme version of this comes out, but when it does I will definitely be building a new rig to replace my current Q6600 setup.
 

sohei

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2009
93
0
18,630
0
anyway you can build a dual socket i7 920 8 cores/12 threads platform which is better than 980 and you remain with almost half of the money in your pocket...and about power consumption :
2 i7 920 must work 4 years non-stop in full load to consume the difference in money of i7 980
in 4 years i7 980 will be just a piece of metal with no value
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
6, 8, 12, 48 cores/threads - it doesn't matter. Programming is lagging far far behind to even utilize these things. We are stuck in an era where most programs are still single core oriented and dual is the new/current trend for games! Unless I am a number cruncher, statistician, programmer, etc, what good does it do to have these when a majority of people will spend their time watching all these extra cores.......idle? I wish more than a core count race, that someone would find the way to break the barrier and be able to up the speed past the 3-3.5 Ghz barrier we have been stuck at for years now. Thumbs up for the cool factor just to have one though, not much else.
 

Dirtman73

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2009
382
0
18,790
1
Heck, I should be able to buy this when the price becomes reasonable, say in about 3-4 years. Of course, by then it'll be outdated technology.

I'm just kidding. It's Intel, so I plan on never buying it, regardless of the price.
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
1,563
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]6, 8, 12, 48 cores/threads - it doesn't matter. Programming is lagging far far behind to even utilize these things. [/citation]

Wrong! 3D rendering, graphics and video editing applications are heavily threaded and until they get moved to the GPU, a multicore CPU is the best tool for the job. This CPU might be too expensive for the performance gains it offers but that's normal for top-of-the-line Intel Extreme Edition.
 

mlopinto2k1

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,433
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]compfreak93[/nom]doesnt AMD already have this?[/citation]
I believe AMD has a 6 core processor but it does not have hyperthreading.
 

shin0bi272

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
1,103
0
19,310
12
[citation][nom]compfreak93[/nom]doesnt AMD already have this?[/citation]
Intel already has 6 core single die cpus too they are just in the server market. AMD's 6core opteron came out july 1st 09 (on paper at least).
 

shin0bi272

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
1,103
0
19,310
12
Id like to reiterate my support for this 6 core desktop cpu that I uttered (er typed) in the review of its performance here on THG. I wont be buying one but thats only because Im honestly waiting for the 8 core w/HT to come out. Maybe if I start saving now I'll have the money next year or 2012 when it comes out.
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Wrong! 3D rendering, graphics and video editing applications are heavily threaded[/citation]
I think I covered this when mentioning the "number cruncher, statistician, programmer, etc," part.

When CUDA and Stream really start taking off, then these processors may become more and more irrelevant as time passes. As to the "3D rendering, graphics and video editing" people out there, what percent of these people are the majority, everyday users out there? These and the CPUs that follow (carrying even more multiples of cores) will be strictly for the server/business/R&D/Hollywood role while the 95% of the rest of the computing world has no use due to programming not taking full advantage of them. Face it, Intel and AMD are ahead of themselves because no one has figured out how to make the x86 processors clock faster, so they're increasing core count in return!
 
G

Guest

Guest
I want to play Crysis, and I was wondering if anyone knows how well it runs on this CPU?
 

Abrahm

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2007
369
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]6, 8, 12, 48 cores/threads - it doesn't matter. Programming is lagging far far behind to even utilize these things. We are stuck in an era where most programs are still single core oriented and dual is the new/current trend for games! Unless I am a number cruncher, statistician, programmer, etc, what good does it do to have these when a majority of people will spend their time watching all these extra cores.......idle? I wish more than a core count race, that someone would find the way to break the barrier and be able to up the speed past the 3-3.5 Ghz barrier we have been stuck at for years now. Thumbs up for the cool factor just to have one though, not much else.[/citation]

You are severely under estimating the difficulty in parallel processing. It isn't just flipping a switch and magically you use more cores. Programming distributed applications is difficult and only useful in certain situations. Some situations are impossible to run on multiple cores, some are not worth the extra over head needed to spread the computing on other cores, and some situations are great for parallel processing.

The real benefit behind this is multi-tasking. Being able to run more programs at once without slowing to a crawl. Having your anti-virus start a scan without you even noticing is the real benefit. Some programs can benefit from more cores directly, but having more cores will benefit everyone, just need to wait for it to come down in price.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Don't you feel sorry for everyone that's purchased a Core i7 Extreme Edition 975. Reading this is article would me sick!
 
After reading the review, there is no doubt that this 6 core chip is a monster, especially in terms of productivity. It's just a shame that it has a $1K price tag. Hopefully the planned 8 core Sandy Bridge chips are a bit cheaper when they are released.
 

matt_b

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
653
0
19,010
11
[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]You are severely under estimating the difficulty in parallel processing. It isn't just flipping a switch and magically you use more cores. Programming distributed applications is difficult and only useful in certain situations. Some situations are impossible to run on multiple cores, some are not worth the extra over head needed to spread the computing on other cores, and some situations are great for parallel processing.[/citation]
You are just helping to prove my point with this statement. This right here would be an example of why core count is not the answer to a faster computer because of the speed wall chip makers have hit. When it boils down to it, everything benefits from core speed, but most programs (for the reasons you pointed out) do not from core count - which is what we're talking about here.

The real benefit behind this is multi-tasking. Being able to run more programs at once without slowing to a crawl. Having your anti-virus start a scan without you even noticing is the real benefit. Some programs can benefit from more cores directly, but having more cores will benefit everyone, just need to wait for it to come down in price.
With this in mind, will the same mentality be used when we hit 12 core processors, yet we are still at 3 Ghz? It has been proven that 3 cores is the sweet spot today. When was the last time you pegged your speedy quad core while playing the latest game, surfing the web, and so on - on a daily basis? I think when it comes down to it, I'm isolating in on perhaps intelligent assignment by the operating system for those programs that are not multi-threaded or don't need to be. How many programs, and what type will you be running to max out all six cores right now? RAM is the helping hand in this situation, it's there so the CPU doesn't have to work as hard doing its job.

Core count is good for those select situations that are a great benefit (counting industries mentioned earlier), but core speed will win against core count all of the time, while core count will win against core speed sometimes. I feel that the industry has not caught up with the core count craze yet, so the benefits are not there. Just because you go out and buy a 6 core CPU, that doesn't mean that you will be 600% faster - and that's a disappointing fact. When CUDA/Stream hit full stride, who knows what will happen to the CPU as we know it then!
 

kalogagatya

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2009
112
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]followingtherules[/nom]I want to play Crysis, and I was wondering if anyone knows how well it runs on this CPU?[/citation]

ahahahahahahaha after buying this one the only crysis you'll be playing is a financial crysis...
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
1,563
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]As to the "3D rendering, graphics and video editing" people out there, what percent of these people are the majority, everyday users out there?[/citation]

What percentage of people overclock their processors or graphics cards? Yet almost every motherboard has overclocking features. Besides, this is not a processor for the average user. Most people would be fine with a dual core and wouldn't notice the difference in performance vs a quad core. Professionals who use 3D rendering software, movie editing software, Photoshop, etc do need multicore processing and they'll appreciate the increase in speed.
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
1,563
0
19,790
2
[citation][nom]Lewlkat[/nom]First Fermi and now Gulftown... AMD fanbois must be ready to jump off a bridge.[/citation]

Nah. Tom's Hardware recommends AMD for graphics and CPU at every price point. That means they're better products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS