Intel Core i9

MrDrift

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2009
98
0
18,640
1
Hey guys
i just wanted to know
what do ya think of the up coming six core i9
its said to have a clock speed of 3333mhz
 

hunter315

Champion
Moderator
If it does have a core speed of 3.33GHz expect it to cost significantly more than $1k, as the i7 975 currently has that clock speed and costs $1k and intel wont provide a better processor for less than their current flagship. I assume that the one at 3.33GHz will be their flagship with one or two lower level offerings, but probably nothing near the i7 920 price wise.
 

jonpaul37

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
2,481
0
19,960
81
The prices are just plain rediculous for a tiny little chip! I still cannot grasp that a complex GPU (such as the ATI 5970) is less expensive than that of a CPU chip (not to mention that the i7 920 & i7 965 are exactly the same thing, but the price difference is that on 3 x i7 920's)
 

Raidur

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
2,365
0
19,960
68
The i9 is impressive, but no where near worth the price tag. AMD's will undoubtedly be much cheaper and will give them a slight market advantage for people looking for 6 cores, thank god.

It's so expensive because it is the best CPU available. It's a 'Because I Can!' type of thing. If nobody paid that much for a CPU they wouldn't do it, but some of us (NOT including me, heh) have unlimited (or near unlimited) funds and won't mind forking over the cash for bragging rights (and yes, some people will actually use it on a daily basis to its potential, but not all).

Ridiculous, I know. But if you could sell something with a 400-800% markup to an aware customer(s), time and time again, wouldn't you?
 

LePhuronn

Distinguished
Apr 20, 2007
1,949
0
19,960
87
As with all of Intel's new chips, the first one will be an overly-expensive Extreme Edition. Shortly after the first launch we'll see mainstream i9s in more sensible price brackets, although I hope they don't limit the OC potential of the lower i9s to prevent sensible people getting the cheap one and outperforming the flagship like we all did with the i7 920 and Q6600
 

Raidur

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2008
2,365
0
19,960
68
Yeah and with the low temps/voltage this thing gets I see some massive OC headroom, we'll see. I have a feeling once this thing gets some juice pumped into it it'll become an oven though.
 

warmon6

Splendid
Jul 24, 2009
4,153
0
22,960
78


I heard all kinds of speeds. 2.4, 2.8, and 3.3 GHz. So until Intel release the specs. I'm not sure if anyone will know what the true speeds will be.
 
With a few exceptions in the newer releases, by and large games still are not coded to take advantage of a large number of independent threads. Therefore core count is not a very high priority when it comes to gaming. It helps, sure, if for no other reason than your game can run on one or two cores while the rest of the apps and services which are running at the time may use cycles on the unloaded ones. But IMHO, (at the moment) the Quads which are just now coming intp common use are more than adequate for current and next gen titles. I should think that the added cost of a (server chip, BTW) "6 Core Plus Hyperthreading" monster would deliver very little in real life usage on the desktop in a gaming situation. One would need to do heavy encoding and rendering to tax the thing.

Sure - that will change over time (years?), but understand that massively paralell code is *very* hard to write - which means additional up front costs the publishers don't want to pay. And keep in mind most computers are still singles and duals (though this is changing), so were publishers to write to take full advantage of a massively paralell system, then it's a good bet their games would suffer on the majority of their player base's systems. Not to mention the big bottleneck now is still Video.



(...and yes, I fully realize this is a repeat of many of the same arguments in the "Dual versus Quad" wars of a couple years ago. I understand that we will "get there" and enjoy the benefits of massively paralell systems. Publishers *will* take advantage sooner or later. But IMHO, We 'ain't there quite yet...)
 

loneninja

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2009
2,184
0
20,160
109


While a faster clocked I5 will perform better in game. There are still a large number of games where a faster clocked dual core beats the slower clocked quad, how do you expect 6 cores/12threads to help improve gaming performance when the game isn't coded to use those threads.
 

cjl

Splendid
And you work for intel and know this for a fact? Give me a break. The 2.4Ghz model is going to be 399-499.
1) How do you know they'll even have a low end 2.4GHz model?

2) If they keep i7-9xx on the market, I guarantee that they won't have an i9 below $600, min.
 

cjl

Splendid
Well, I don't see them competing with nehalem on all levels until Bulldozer, though a 6-core Phenom could bring them into competition with current Nehalems for multithreaded performance.
 

warmon6

Splendid
Jul 24, 2009
4,153
0
22,960
78


I have also heard that AMD may release it around the same time frame as the core i9, which should be around 2Q of 2010. Although these are rumors as well.
 

tobiashensch

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2009
66
0
18,640
1


The games we'll in the future will probably be coded in a way where they can use many cores... Just look at fsx, the more cores the better :D
And it doesnt seem like intel is developing high clocked cpus in the near future....
 

cjl

Splendid
The Only ES we have seen have been in the 2.4Ghz variety which is why it leads me to believe that'll be close to an actual model. Tests have shown the 2.4Ghz I9 is like 5% faster then the 920 I7 so if they indeed go with that clock speed what would be the point of jacking up the price if it's only 5% faster? A 2.4Ghz I9 @ 399-499 would a win win for intel. Why? Simple.

1. It would still be priced higher then the base I7
2. Would still be in reach for enthusiasts to purchase

We really should do a poll. NO ONE is going to buy this chip if it's over a thousand dollars. F that. It's not even worth it IMO and i'm sure every other person on this forum who wants the best will agree with me. I'll say this now. If intel f's up the pricing on this chip i'll actually consider going with an X6 from Amd.
If a 6 core from AMD is only as fast as an i7 with hyperthreading, then there's no reason to compare it with an i9 (and Intel has no motivation to price the i9 to compete with it, since the performance isn't even close). That's a strong possibility right now IMO.

As for nobody buying the chip? There would definitely still be people. It would just be more heavily weighted towards business users than gamers. Solidworks costs several thousand dollars - a $1k chip is perfectly reasonable to accelerate that.

I'd love it if Intel would release a low end model, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
Maybe it all depends on the time these processors are released. If Bulldozer releases before i9 and out-performs the i7 or at least gives almost equal performance at a lower price, then i9's could be priced lower to beat the competition from Bulldozer. And if i9 releases before, then god knows what Intel would do about the pricing. Intel is known for its steep price for quality.
 

Similar threads