Intel Core i7-980X Extreme: Hello, Six-Core Computing

[DjEaZy]

... and in gaming... no sense and waste of money...

 

[dragonsqrrl]

Oh my ultimate dream processor, and it's completely out of my price range... to bad. Unfortunately the 6 core i7's will more then likely 'always' be out of my price range. A non extreme edition 6 core i7 should be coming out mid year, although I'm almost certain it'll be outside my price range as well, most likely a $500-600 processor. I'll probably end up with an i7-930.

I do a lot of encoding, video editing, and 3D work, so this decision matters, a Lot. The i7-980x could save a lot of time in this regard, while not using anymore power, but it simply isn't worth 3-4x the cost.

 

[fbson]

Awesome CPU, but I see it more geared toward business uses like file/database server where running as many threads you can is the real deal.
For home entertainment and gaming, ever hardcore, a midrange CPU and a couple of fast video cards are by far better bang for buck.

 

[1898]

Nice read, thank you!
I'd have loved to see BFBC2 in there since it's quite CPU hungry.

 

[anamaniac]

I'm curious as to how these will compete to the 2.2GHz 12 core Opterons. Real applications of course, because I doubt many games would care more for a 12 core 2.2GHz processor than any dual core available.
This is making my $300 i7-902 seem like a P4 among C2D's though. ='(

I'm curious as to when we can see the next generation of boards (x68 or whatever they want to name it). I'm hoping for PCIe 3.0, USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, and the improvements that come with every new lineup (such as being able to run the same clocks on even 0.01V less than the last board).
Though the Foxconn Bloodrage has had the beta bios for the Gulftowns out publically for a few months now.

I also want to know more about this new stock HSF. I actually like the stock HSF for my i7. First off, I think they look better than tower types with heatpipes, and they are actually quite effective (hence regretting buying a $70 HSF that wouldn't do any better while weighing twice as much).

And one last thing, I thought I told you on your last video review to work on your presentation skills Mr. Angelini. You may be able to write an absolutely sick article, but honestly, watching you present in person is an unpleasant experience. =D
You gho back to your $1000 sexacore CPU and $1000 30" monitor, I'll keep my $300 CPU and triple $200 2048x1152 monitors thank you. (Okay, I lie, I want a 30")

 

[brendonmc]

I'll type my comment after I wipe the drool off my keyboard....
One question springs to mind here: Why use a single 5850 to try and demonstrate if there would be any benefits for gamers? Here is a quote from the Toms Hardware article on the HD5970:
" let’s talk about who can actually put this beast to use. How about the enthusiast with a roomy chassis, an overclocked Core i7 processor able to let it breathe, and a triple-monitor configuration? It’s certainly possible to bog a pair of Cypress GPUs down with 2560x1600".
If you had spent more than $1000 on a pair of graphics cards would there be any perfomance benefit from getting an i7-980X?

 

[IzzyCraft]

Lol at all these oh no improvement in games comments. I drooled when saw the transcoding and photoshop benches also that's be one sexy mutlitasker too bad it cost you your youngest child.

Yeah some newer games are cpu intensive but you realize that most of them are still only single thread for running most of the game and the rest is off loading little things can't benefit from all that good ness, hell sc2 a rts that still in beta is only single threaded and threads for engine is not something you implement in beta the engine is pretty much locked in as it's out of alpha.

I'd love a 1000 dollar cpu but then again i'd love a 1000 dollar monitor.

Well at-least intel is showing off progress now we just need to wait for the 32nm cost to drop assuming intel doesn't do anything exotic to it.

 

[manitoublack]

"last-generation’s 45nm quad-core." The truth hurts

Great read

 

[randomizer]

DO WANT

This would make rendering so much quicker.

 

[memeroot]

need to update the games tested... these tests tell us nothing

 

[blacksins]

why always when the Phenom lead the benchmark Toms hardware don't comment about it??!! they just keep talking about the Intel!! AMD won most of the benchmarks and have the lowest price, Period

 

[deisu]

Someone should review game benchmarks in cpu articles, since is allways the same... better cpu = not necesary. People like me will be mistaken in games like Aion, where a phenom II x925 is able to get decent scores in your benchmarks, but in Aion will get 5-10fps in a pvp sesion using a radeon 5850.

 

[frozenlead]

[citation][nom]blacksins[/nom]why always when the Phenom lead the benchmark Toms hardware don't comment about it??!! they just keep talking about the Intel!! AMD won most of the benchmarks and have the lowest price, Period[/citation]

Either your eyes are lying to you, or you're lying to yourself. The Phenom came in last most of the time..

 

[blacksins]

[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]Either your eyes are lying to you, or you're lying to yourself. The Phenom came in last most of the time..[/citation]
the phenom got better FPS in modern warfare 2 and l4d2 i think, check again

 

[deisu]

I forgot to mention that the 5850 is at 50% of load while the phenom is at 100%.

 

[RazberyBandit]

Either your eyes are lying to you, or you're lying to yourself. The Phenom came in last most of the time..

I beg to differ. The only game in which the AMD 965BE was truly defeated within was Left 4 Dead. In the other games, the 965BE not only held it's own, but topped all the Intel CPUs at several resolutions and settings levels. In many of the tests, it was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, with very, very minor differences (often half a frame or less) between it and the far more expensive Intel offerings. It should be made clear that with the exception of L4D, the differences between the CPUs weren't "game-breaking" to any degree.

I'm impressed by Intel's ability to manufacture such a processor. I hope that their success with the 32nm process leads to similar, yet more affordable 32nm CPUs for the more price-conscious market.

 

[blacksins]

[citation][nom]RazberyBandit[/nom]I beg to differ. The only game in which the AMD 965BE was truly defeated within was Left 4 Dead. In the other games, the 965BE not only held it's own, but topped the all the Intel CPUs at several resolutions and settings levels. In many of the tests, it was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, with very, very minor differences (often half a frame or less) between it and the far more expensive Intel offerings. It should be made clear that with the exception of L4D, the differences between the CPUs weren't "game-breaking" to any degree.I'm impressed by Intel's ability to manufacture such a processor. I hope that their success with the 32nm process leads to similar, yet more affordable 32nm CPUs for the more price-conscious market.[/citation]
yeah thats what i talked about earlier.. thanks

 

[liemfukliang]

Oot --> Why the print button always get me wrong page in Tomshardware? It work fine in Tomsguide. The realcase is in this article I click print and it goes to http://www.tomshardware.com/news_print.php?p1=2573.
That url title is:

TV electronics shipments to double by 2010, says research firm - Print


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/tv-electronics-shipments,2573.html
10:22 AM - April 4, 2006 by From the Web
Source: Tom's Hardware US
....

Tested in IE 8 and FF 3.58. All pointing in the same wrong page. I can't submit my comment in IE 8. Trying in FF.

I think some coding is mess up. Please fix it. Thank you.

 

[Derbixrace]

it would be really fun to see how the 980x performs in multi gpu setups. i think it could shine there

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]blacksins[/nom]why always when the Phenom lead the benchmark Toms hardware don't comment about it??!! they just keep talking about the Intel!! AMD won most of the benchmarks and have the lowest price, Period[/citation]
Maybe because in the few benchmarks the Phenom II won, it won by less than 2%. It's hardly worth making a fuss over. Also, in case you didn't realise, this happens to be an article about the i7 980X. The Phenom II article is a bit older, maybe you should go look for it if you're after comments about that chip.

 

[4ILY45]

@ Chris: you sure that the benchmarks are not GPU bottlenecked? IMO a 5970 should have been used just to be sure..

 

[Onus]

The "Show" and "Hide" links next to comments are no longer working for me. I've tried it using both IE7 (work) and FF3.6 (home).
==============
On topic, this chip is simply too expensive for what it offers anyone but a business. One would hope that the current economic client would have long since convinced people to not spend their (or their parents') hard-earned money on edongs.

 

[Ciuy]

my Pentium 4 at 3.2 Ghz is better than this cpu ...

 

[DjEaZy]

... i had a post... something about video coding with CPU and thet this is lame... where iz the post... becouse it iz lame... YOU can uzsa CPU+GPU combination to do video coding much faster... DirectCompute, OpenCL, nVidia CUDA and ATi Stream...

 

[Bolbi]

[citation][nom]eugenester[/nom]I wonder how much AMD's Phenom II X6 will be and how it will compare to 980X...[/citation]
Unfortunately, an AMD Phenom III X6 would need to use 32nm and an AMD form of hyperthreading to even have a chance of matching Gulftown's performance. (I've never understood why AMD didn't implement hyperthreading in their lineup.) By then, Intel will have their next-gen CPU out... AMD's strength is providing great prices on CPUs that suffice for the needs of most people quite easily. My guess is that Intel will remain King of Fastest-CPU Hill for a while to come.