Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition Review

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
4
[citation][nom]moideux[/nom]Boo! Hiss! Another exclusionary contest, typical. I am really getting sick of this.[/citation]

Official word from the top: "We so much appreciate your enthusiasm for our contests. Those who can participate in our contests are limited to the residency of the United States so that we can adhere to the Contest/Sweepstakes/Lottery rules governed by the USA Federal Trade Commission."

We have to adhere to the letter of the law :)
 

mayne92

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
743
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]Wow AMD's CPU is just getting plain-ol decimated in this review.Still, it does hold it's ground even though the architecture is like 4 years old, using the same technology that was around back when the C2Q's we're the high-end (the same as the original phenoms on a die shrink).Because of this, I can almost guarantee AMD's success with their future CPU's, just like I predicted the 2600K would be faster in most cases than the 980X.That doesn't mean I'm saying that Bulldozer will outperform the i7's or upcoming 8-core Intel CPU's I'm just saying that there's going to be some serious decisions for upgraders this year.I mean look at Magny corus 12 core (2.2GHz) vs i7 980x, it's almost as fast and 1GHz slower (but 12 physical cores) and cost's the same.[/citation]
Why did you compare a server CPU with that of a Desktop CPU in support for your previous statement about "some serious decisions for upgraders". Obviously you don't understand computers on the ground level...you and the person that +1'd you...
 

PudgyChicken

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
532
0
19,010
17
Well I have a 980X, and after seeing how the scores were pretty much tied with the 990X, I laughed quite a bit. People are dumping their 980X's on ebay for cheap now. Ignorant much? Yes. If you want a cheap sex-core processor (yes I meant to say sex), go on ebay and start giving people lowball prices, like $300-$500 and they'll go for it :D Silly silly noobs.
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,391
19
19,795
1
Further proof that the 980 and 990 is a complete waste of money for the very slightest most performance gain that absolutely no one will recognize. Sandy Bridge 2600K FTW!

I'm so lucky that I don't have to buy a new computer, yet but my time will come, software will be released that won't run on it. Maybe that'll be Battlefield 3.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Saw this:
"The $770 you pocket as a result of not buying an Extreme Edition CPU buys a sick set of GeForce GTX 570s in SLI and a couple terabytes of storage."
And spat up my coffee! C'mon Chris, a pair of GTX 570's? What about the HD 6950's? They're cheaper AND work better in pairs.

For shame, Chris, didn't you "get the memo" that Tom's Hardware is a Radeon fansite? Look at how many Radeons are in the System Builder Marathon series for "proof" :p
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
4
So buy the 6950s ;-) Sometimes I have to make an example without listing every combination of components you could buy with $700+ dollars. It's for the sake of brevity, after all.
 

Why_Me

Champion
I'm not going to upgrade until 2014 when Bull Dozer is finally released. I heard it's going to have 320 cores, and be on par with a 2500K. I would have upgraded to a Sandy Bridge build, but all my clan mates explained to me how Intel was run by Satan and his minions and that if I ever was to use an Intel rig that I should always wear my AMD certified tinfoil hat, otherwise what little brains I might have will be sucked out of my head and I wouldn't ever be able to make it out of 4th grade.
 

catchercradle

Distinguished
May 27, 2009
54
0
18,630
0
Contest not open to readers this side of the pond. I guess I still have to dream about owning one of those processors. I wonder how they stack up on climateprediction.net's work units?
 

masterofevil22

Distinguished
May 13, 2010
229
0
18,690
3
I still say 1055t at 4ghz($170)+ right now is the best bang for your buck or the i5-2500K oc'd to ~4.5ghz ($230) if you've got the bread for it. WHY though would anyone pay another $700+ to shave a few seconds off their Itunes decode makes no sense whats so ever. Intel is just like apple in the sense that yes, they have some very compelling products. Does that justify the outrageous pricing and insane profit margin they fabricate for themselves as a result... NO
 

masterofevil22

Distinguished
May 13, 2010
229
0
18,690
3
Bottom line is that ALL of these high end chips from AMD or Intel will get you plenty of performance. If you feel like getting raked over the coals for a short lived technological and bragging advantage, have at it.
 

PudgyChicken

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
532
0
19,010
17
[citation][nom]atikkur[/nom]300SB-CPU+200MB+350GPU+70RAM+80HDD = 1000i7-990x? are you sure? intel must be crazy.[/citation]
just cause you're poor doesn't mean you have to make a big deal out of it...
 

Why_Me

Champion

LOL? First off the 1055T is not a "good bang for the buck cpu". It's a total dog is what it is. A 2300 Sandy Bridge ($185 USD) mops the floor with the 1055T and last time I checked, Intel wasn't holding a gun to anyones head forcing them to buy a $1,000 USD cpu.
 

masterofevil22

Distinguished
May 13, 2010
229
0
18,690
3
First, a 4ghz+ 1055t will absolutely trash a 2300 for hidef video encoding and at 4ghz it is certainly no dog. I'm sure the 2300 is no dog either, but if u want to support the amd camp, there is really no point(compition is a good thing remember) in paying more for the 1100t or 1090t. Sure they have an unlocked multiplier, but they all hit the same thermal wall bc they're all still 45nm. You're going to get a little over 4ghz with any of them.

Also, I don't think I said Intel was going to shoot anyone, just that they greatly inflate margins to take advantage of suckers, who in most cases think they "need" them.. which obviously exist and do so and the cycle just continues.

If anyone has ever used an amd 6 core at 4ghz+ and that's not enough for them, then by all means buy an intel cpu of whatever make you can justfy for your "needs", but for $170, that's more performance than most consumers, power users included, will need.
 

michaeldf

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2011
57
0
18,630
0
Hi guys, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I read the article with a specific question in mind:

I've got a 2600 (NOT the 'k' version) in an HPE-570t.

Because of the c200 chipset defect issue, I have the choice of either getting a new 570t with the defect corrected, or getting an HPE-590t that has the i7-970 AND a Blu Ray.

From what I understand, the 2600 is simply a better processor for MOST apps than the 970. And I hear that I could install a Blu Ray for as low as $50 (what I want is the huge storage capacity, not to watch movies).

I plan to do photoshop and video editing. But not professional.

The reason I bought a "high performance" (that's what the HPE stands for, I'm told) computer was so it would better resist obsolesance longer than a lower-grade AMD machine that was $300 less.

Within the context of the point in this article, what do you think? 2600 or 970 + Blu Ray???

Has the new Sandy Bridge 4-core made the 970 obsolete already???
 

pollito

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2009
7
0
18,510
0
I am waiting for the 10 cores baby lol
$1000 for a CPU hell no I can play very good with my i7 2600K
but if you have that cash go for it.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]michaeldf[/nom]Hi guys, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I read the article with a specific question in mind:I've got a 2600 (NOT the 'k' version) in an HPE-570t.Because of the c200 chipset defect issue, I have the choice of either getting a new 570t with the defect corrected, or getting an HPE-590t that has the i7-970 AND a Blu Ray.From what I understand, the 2600 is simply a better processor for MOST apps than the 970. And I hear that I could install a Blu Ray for as low as $50 (what I want is the huge storage capacity, not to watch movies).I plan to do photoshop and video editing. But not professional.The reason I bought a "high performance" (that's what the HPE stands for, I'm told) computer was so it would better resist obsolesance longer than a lower-grade AMD machine that was $300 less.Within the context of the point in this article, what do you think? 2600 or 970 + Blu Ray???Has the new Sandy Bridge 4-core made the 970 obsolete already???[/citation]Dude, the mobile Core i7-2920XM has already made the 980X obsolete in most applications. The 2600 is faster than the 2920XM, and the 970 is slower than the 980X.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
No WoW tests Chris? :D I for one would sure like to see some. I'd also like to see tests done with the affinity settings in WoW set to use all the cores available - I don't think this makes any significant difference, I don't think WoW makes much use of more than 2 cores even then, but more formal testing would be great.

Not everyone's test show the 900 series flagships being matched or beat by the Sandy Bridges, interestingly enough.

I really wish they'd make a full-blown chip like the 980X or 990X available for around $400. I'd like to keep my current 1366 based rig going awhile longer, and that would make it justifiable, cost-wise (price of a new CPU and MB would be minimum $400). I won't be building on Sandy Bridge (for myself, anyway) until the end of the year and the next iteration of those chipsets though, so maybe there's time for more 1366 releases or price adjustments.

;)

 

slothy89

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2011
75
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]malnute[/nom]I am just curious what app or apps they were running to get all cores and threads running at 100% in task manager and how is it task manager says only 6 gigs or ram available when they were using a 8 and 12 gig kit. My system currently has more threads, handles and processes running and my cpu usage is only 1 % and less than 50% memory usage out of 4gig. I think this is photoshop magic.[/citation]
The reason why the available RAM is lower than the Specc'd 8-12GB is because they use a RAM Disk for swap space when doing the tests. This is to eliminate the HDD bottleneck, allowing the CPU to be fed data at a MUCH higher rate. Your CPU is probably sitting idle waiting for the HDD to give it data from the slow Windows Pagefile stored on your System HDD. Shift the PageFile to a RAM disk, and you get speeds better than even a Sata 6gb/s SSD.

See HERE for a Tom's article about just that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS