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

[Impulse Fire911]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]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.[/citation]

yeah its true. i do lots of AE renders along with 3D and 4 cores sometimes isnt enough. 6 cores is 50% more power which can really show some improvement. however, it would be nice not to pay so much. i wonder how the hyperthread s AMD's non hyperthreaded CPU's will perform. I NEED SOME BENCHMARKS PEOPLE

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]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.[/citation]
A processor for the average user - no, not this one at least. Something like this does indeed have a market, which I mentioned myself as well as others. The concept of Intel and AMD telling you "more cores are better" - spills down to the mainstream parts though. We will likely see those 2.33 Ghz 6 core chips (non-Extreme of course). What I am saying though, is I would rather see them throw their R&D money at figuring out why they have hit a wall at the 3 Ghz spot rather than see who can splice as many cores together on a piece of silicon. They are using core count as an excuse because they haven't figured it out yet. The benefits of a faster single core far outpace that of a slower multi-core. I do not want to see in 5 years from now a 32 core 2.66 Ghz chip. I'd gladly fork over the cash for the 16 core 5.32 Ghz piece - you get the idea. Programs like 3D rendering software, movie editing software, Photoshop, etc - are already on the CUDA bandwagon. Everyone already knows that a GPU can obliterate a CPU at computations.....

 

[xaira]

[citation][nom]Lewlkat[/nom]First Fermi and now Gulftown... AMD fanbois must be ready to jump off a bridge.[/citation]

Correction, first a 300watt gpu and now a $999 cpu...Is the market literally trying to give amd more R&D money. *Fixed

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]I would rather see them throw their R&D money at figuring out why they have hit a wall at the 3 Ghz spot rather than see who can splice as many cores together on a piece of silicon[/citation]

I think you're overestimating the importance of CPU frequency. My 3.2 GHz Celeron D was significantly slower than my 1.8Ghz Athlon 64. A Core i3 at 2.9GHz is significantly faster than an Athlon X2 @ 3.1GHz. If you're getting twice the performance every two years, who cares if it's more cores or higher frequency or better architecture.

 

[nalerian]

For those complaining about "games/programs don't use more than 2 cores" - when was the last time you were even able to dedicate your entire system to running a single application? I'm pretty sure that we all have multiple programs open/running.... and now my web browser won't be slowed down or lose access to clock cycles because my word processor is also open, woot! Seriously though, with the way operating systems and users are today, more simultaneous processing power is still a good thing (and not entirely wasted - though cost efficiency is still way off).

 

[Guest]

"Nah. Tom's Hardware recommends AMD for graphics and CPU at every price point. That means they're better products."

Then why does a Phenom II 965 struggle behind an i5 750 in the $199 price race in numerous categories (apps/games) according to TH's charts?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2545.html

Pages 4, 5 and 6 sure do mention Intel plenty.

 

[faresdani]

AMD just lunched their real 12 core opteron processor, so whats so special about the 6 core core i7 ???? the six core opteron was lunched 1 year ago.

 

[X-Nemesis]

I don't get it...for the average user this doesn't really make much of a difference right???, cause hardly any software truly utilizes 4 cores as it is...so why the heck do consumers need 6 cores then? Think Gamers...how many games out there make full use of 4 core cpu's?

I honestly don't know so if someone here does I'd be curious to know the rough percentage?

 

[OvrClkr]

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

Sir, you need to google "how many cores does Crysis use"?

Takes 2 seconds flat

Anyways here is an old article that explains what you are looking for :

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/video/quadcore-p1.html

 

[FLYBOY294]

[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]

yeah.... I'd put my money towards a high end graphics card instead...!

 

[Guest]

This would make for good rendering of multi-threaded ray tracing animations. That's what puts a nice bug smile on my face. I'd never buy it just to game with though.

 

[sabot00]

AMD already has a 12 core Opteron.

AMD also has the Athlon II X4 620 at $90.
90/4 = 22.5

 

[OvrClkr]

http://www.internetnews.com/hardware/article.php/3866761

 

[Burodsx]

I just want a 32nm Quad core...

 

[Guest]

8 Core is Better!

 

[jfem]

It's good that the i5 750 is recommended in the video, beats most if not all of the i7 offerings in price/performance.

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]I think you're overestimating the importance of CPU frequency. My 3.2 GHz Celeron D was significantly slower than my 1.8Ghz Athlon 64. A Core i3 at 2.9GHz is significantly faster than an Athlon X2 @ 3.1GHz. If you're getting twice the performance every two years, who cares if it's more cores or higher frequency or better architecture.[/citation]
I'm not overestimating anything here. Your examples are comparing unlike products with each other. Think back to the Athlon 64 versus P4 days, why did an AMD 3500 64 chip rated at 2.2 Ghz whip a P4 rated at 3 Ghz? The answer is simply - they executed instruction sets differently, one was more efficient than the other, and one implemented different technologies to achieve more with less clock speed (and do more work per clock cycle). Using one of your examples: "A Core i3 at 2.9GHz is significantly faster than an Athlon X2 @ 3.1GHz" - first, they are generations apart. Second, because of the generations apart, they have many other technology advancements implemented into the i3 chip not to mention what that does on a per-clock-cycle calculation. The 3Ghz chip of today is considerably faster than the one of five years ago due to these reasons and many others I haven't listed. If chip speed isn't important, as you say, then give me a chip rated at 1Ghz with 8 or even 16 cores. The extra core count should make up for the lack of speed - especially during gaming, web browsing, Powerpoint, AutoCAD/Solidworks, and so on - right?

 

[shiznit770]

[citation][nom]Matt_B[/nom]I'm not overestimating anything here. Your examples are comparing unlike products with each other. Think back to the Athlon 64 versus P4 days, why did an AMD 3500 64 chip rated at 2.2 Ghz whip a P4 rated at 3 Ghz? The answer is simply - they executed instruction sets differently, one was more efficient than the other, and one implemented different technologies to achieve more with less clock speed (and do more work per clock cycle). Using one of your examples: "A Core i3 at 2.9GHz is significantly faster than an Athlon X2 @ 3.1GHz" - first, they are generations apart. Second, because of the generations apart, they have many other technology advancements implemented into the i3 chip not to mention what that does on a per-clock-cycle calculation. The 3Ghz chip of today is considerably faster than the one of five years ago due to these reasons and many others I haven't listed. If chip speed isn't important, as you say, then give me a chip rated at 1Ghz with 8 or even 16 cores. The extra core count should make up for the lack of speed - especially during gaming, web browsing, Powerpoint, AutoCAD/Solidworks, and so on - right?[/citation]

So wait, you acknowledge that the most important advances in the last years have not been increases in cpu frequency, but other aspects of the cpu....yet you still think higher clock frequency is what's holding cpu performance back?

You've created a fallacy to attempt to prove your point...when actually you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[znegval]

[citation][nom]followingtherules[/nom]I want to play Crysis, and I was wondering if anyone knows how well it runs on this CPU?[/citation]

Interesting. You found a way to say "but can it play Crysis?" without getting massive thumbs down.

 

[victomofreality]

OH GOD... I think I need to change my pants... I don't even know what I would do with that much processing power but I want it!

 

[rippleyhakd]

The Key is.. If it is too expensive for you to get, then stfu. Seriously, 1. this proc can be overclocked to 4ghz EASILY, 2. six cores.. /drool
3. Battle Field , bad company 2, for example, does indeed utilize all 4 cores of my 9550 cpu.. 4x2.8ghz, and it ROCKS!!!
The most important tid bit, For people like me and the people in my circle, $1000 is CHEAP, for the performance.. BASED ON THE FACT, i have $800 in just video cards, that will be obsolete in less than 1yr, I have $1000 in SSD drives, 320GB "4x 80gb intel's" WELL over $2500 in storage for my archive data (12x1.5 tb).. So different POV's (point of views).. We wont even talk about $5000 car stereo's or $6000 Home entertainment centers.. AND!!! i recall when i first got into this IT field, $1000 for an intel dx2, 66mhz intel cpu.. when it first came out, or the $1000 for the first 1GB hard drive, LOL,, stuff is already cheap.. if ya cant afford to run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch..