Intel Slips Out New 3.2GHz Core i7-970 Gulftown

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]TemjinGold[/nom]Not that I think it's a good deal but you DO realize Gulftown is SIX cores, right? Your 930 can't magically grow a pair, so to speak...[/citation]
And you can overclock the 970 as well
 
Title modification: "Intel Slips Out New 3.2GHz Core i7-970 Gulftown that only the filthy rich can afford"

IMHO what a wast of money, may as well buy a 12 core rig for that insane price.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]There's no way Bulldozer will be able to match anything Intel has to offer at least in terms of performance.[/citation]

Bold statement when we dont have any numbers to prove that or not. Keep an open mind for future products next time until we get some hard numbers.

As others stated, AMD has taken the performance crown from intel before. P4 vs athlon 64 days anyone? 😉
 
The way hardware becomes outdated so rapidly is the reason I never go for extreme editions when I build a new gaming rig, can't justify the extra cost. Another reason is sometimes all that extra cash does nothing for you except bragging rights. It pays to do a little research before building.

If I were to build a new rig today I would still choose a Q9650 Quad core chip (in my current rig) priced at $330 at newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130

Go here and you can see that the Q9650 keeps right up and even beats out the i7 extreme on Call of Duty 4 in one test, here:
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_performance_preview/11

I'm not say the i7 sucks because overall it beats the older quad cores but value for the dollar you will save a crapload of cash and loose a frame or two here and there and never notice it.

This can be applied to video cards as well always check the charts before you buy.

 
[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]6 Cores + Intel's Hyperthreading = 12 Threads; I'd say that's fair for the price[/citation]
Threads don't perform like actual cores so no.
 
"Then again, you could put that $100 towards a faster GPU, and you'd probably be better off."

this. the 970 makes the 980 pointless for all but the biggest enthusiasts.
 
[citation][nom]Lmeow[/nom]Ugh... Damn Intel pricing. Seriously, I wonder how the sales will be. You could probably buy two Core i7 930 systems with the cost of one i7 970 system and the only people willing to pay that much for a processor are mostly enthusiasts, who would go for an i7 980X anyway. Way to go. -_-[/citation]
I'm with you...I just got:
ASUS P6X58D Premium Desktop Motherboard
Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz Quad Core
8 Gig of Kingston 1333MHz DDR3-1333 Ram
For the lest than the cost of 1 of these processors. I don't get it
 
It surprises me how many people seem to forget that computers are not used by gamers alone. If you're in a business situation where your livelyhood depends on the speed of a processor, then yeah, I can see how it is VERY EASILY justified to spend the extra $$$ on the stock i7-980/970. Overclocking voids the warranty...in my opinion, overclocking in a business environment is just playing with fire...Eventually, you're going to get burned.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Let's wait and see shall we?That's like sayig "There's no way Athlon 64's will be able to match anything in the Pentium 4 line"And we all know how that fight finished don't we?[/citation]

I'm never fond of anyone using absolutes, but AMD will probably not be able to match Intel. They passed the Pentium 4 because it was a chip that was designed badly, without taking into account thermal limitations (because they had not run into them before). It was also made to sound fast due to crazy clock speeds.

Neither of those are issues with Intel anymore. And let's face it, the Pentium 4 was WAY more advanced than the Athlon 64, but luckily, the flaws prevented it from beating the Athlon in most benchmarks.

The reality is, though, AMD doesn't have to match Intel in performance. Sandy Bridge doesn't look that great, and even if AMD get cut the gap by 60% or so, that changes the whole dynamic of it. I think they can get even closer than that, but the big problem is Intel's manufacturing, which is ALWAYS better than AMDs. That's what kept them in the game with the lousy Pentium 4.

I hope AMD keeps the size of the chip small too. It's OK not to match them in performance, if their chip is smaller and cheaper to make. I hope that's where they end up - it's a good place.
 
[citation][nom]festerovic[/nom] who the hell would buy this when the 930 OCs past it for 1/3 teh price? My guess: government employees intent on wasting my taxes![/citation]

Well... since people are not supposed to OC their computers in a business/government/school, since they are spending millions of money on their projects/business/research.... if they are using those super expensive server... a $1000 CPU is just the last few digits of their budget... but in that case.. I believe they will just pay 100 more to go for the Extreme.
 
6 cores and hyperthreading and all you gotta do is get Asetek or CoolIt self sealed liquid cooling and overclock to 4Ghz. And for $100 less. Why not?
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]And let's face it, the Pentium 4 was WAY more advanced than the Athlon 64, but luckily, the flaws prevented it from beating the Athlon in most benchmarks.[/citation]

Even if the P4 was more advanced than the Athlon 64 (which it wasn't; saying it was WAY more advanced goes beyond silly), it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Even taking into account the P4's flaws, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The truth of the matter is that the Athlon 64 was a superior chip, and Intel fanboiz STILL can't get over that fact. It's only a matter of time before AMD comes out with another Intel killer.
 
I actually like what Intel's done with this chip, not sure why people are complaining about the high price. It's a better chip than any of the current AMD offerings. People have forgotten how before the core2 duos came out AMD top chips also cost in this same price range.

And by the way it wasn't just Athlon 64 which was beating the P4s. It was since the days of P2s that AMD was competitive and in most cases gave better performance for the price. Only after the core2 duos came out did Intel reach a level AMD couldn't compete with on the top end with.
 
Wow $900 for a cpu that can do the same thing for me as a $160 cpu go figure. And 6 cores when everyone knows they have an 8 core in development. I see a trend just a way to make a boatload of cash off yuppies before something better comes out. :) Just same as always with these cpus. I'm skipping the entire i7 and i5 generation.
 
I find the pricing odd. There's two markets for these chips: enthusiasts and high end workstations. Servers will be using Xeons anyway.

The enthusiast will be backing it up with other high end parts. That's at minimum a $2500 machine, where the extra hundred for an EE doesn't matter much. By the time you're going over a 930 in an enthusiast build, you're well into the graphics territory where $100 isn't going to net you much more GPU, you're already running dual 480s.

The workstation user gets this to make his CAD/rendering/fluid dynamics/whatever go faster. If the 980X saves him 2 hours over its lifetime, it's paid itself off. Again, the cost difference is trivial at that level.

I just can't see a $100 difference being that significant when you're buying this deep into the high end, it's at maximum 5% of the total cost (and likely more like 3% if the rest of the system is similarly specced, even less if it's packing a workstation graphics card). You may as well go whole hog and just get the 980X.
 
I reckon the "enthusiast gamer" crowd would go for it. For some reason they will go for the fastest single processor money can buy, just to get an extra 5 FPS in Crysis, or show off a higher 3D Mark Vantage score. Professional users (3D artists, for instance) will most probably go for a Dual Xeon with Pro Graphics (FireGL or QuadroFX), which beats any 970 system hands down by a very wide margin in pro 3D apps (not to mention the amount of RAM dual CPU motherboards can support).
 
[citation][nom]lradunovic77[/nom]As soon as AMD take performance crown it will change, hopefully with Buldozzer.[/citation]

That's not going to happen before the sun explodes in a nova & engulfs us all.
 
AMD hasn't had the performance crown in years. Since then, they've been making CPUs that are the same speed (and sometimes slower) than Intel's CPUs of last year.

They've even stated in the past that they are no longer in that kind of market. They sure as hell don't have the manpower or it anyway.

And it really doesn't matter what Intel prices their CPUs if they are faster. Because someone WILL pay money to have the faster product. Just like all the Core i7 users have been doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom