facebook rss twitter

Intel's six-core Core i7 970 sneaks into retail

by Pete Mason on 19 July 2010, 10:14

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qay7c

Add to My Vault: x

There may not have been much – or any – fanfare, but Intel seems to have quietly released its second desktop six-core CPU in the form of the Core i7 970. A quick check to a number of retailers reveals that the 3.20GHz chip is now shipping for a not inconsiderable £730.

We last heard rumours about this processor at the beginning of July when Digitimes leaked news that the CPU was set to launch ‘in a few weeks’.

Budget and six cores? Not on your Intel nelly

The Core i7 970 now joins the also-hexa-core i7 980X that landed in March. The new chip is based upon the same 32nm Gulftown core and supports all of the same technologies as its big brother, including Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading for a total of 12 logical cores. However, the newer model will sport a slightly reduced clock speed of 3.20GHz. This is reached with a 24x multiplier, compared to the 25x used on the 3.33GHz-clocked 980X. Other than the fact that the multiplier on the i7 970 is locked upwards, the specifications for the two chips seem to be exactly the same.

While the new CPU is cheaper than its Extreme Edition sibling, this is hardly a budget entry. Listings for the chip have only shown up at a handful of retailers so far, but at the time of writing, eBuyer had it available for £730. This represents a saving of about £100 over the 980X, but means that the i7 970 is still one of the most expensive processors on the market.

AMD rules the budget-orientated hexa-core roost at the moment, with its top-of-the-line Phenom II X6 1090T available for £230. Intel clearly sees that having six cores and budget in the same sentence as the epitome of an oxymoron. We hope that it shies away from this thinking, 'cause there aren't going to be a whole bunch of takers for an asking price which is usually associated with fully-built PCs.


HEXUS Forums :: 14 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by kalniel - Mon 19 Jul 2010 10:33
Intel have to be careful with this one. If they trumpet the importance of multi-core processors too loudly then AMD flash their cheap 6-core parts. If they trumpet the importance of speed per core then their own quad parts look more attractive.
Posted by danroyle - Mon 19 Jul 2010 10:37
i am so glad i got the amd 6 core rather than wait for this BUDGET offering
Posted by borandi - Mon 19 Jul 2010 11:57
kalniel
Intel have to be careful with this one. If they trumpet the importance of multi-core processors too loudly then AMD flash their cheap 6-core parts. If they trumpet the importance of speed per core then their own quad parts look more attractive.

Intel will just flash their hyperthreading. It's a lot better than it used to be; on a dual i7 920 workstation, I easily get 13-14x speed up over 16 threads than just one, and that's on memory intensive simulation software.

danroyle
i am so glad i got the amd 6 core rather than wait for this BUDGET offering

There's a reason for Intel pricing their hexacore so high - performance. It's that much better than any AMD hexacore offering. Even the 920 beats the 1055T/1090T in the majority of heavy workload benchmarks. Intel won't release a hex-core processor for less than £700 any time soon until AMD can get its work done per clock a lot higher. Which will probably be Bulldozer, if they've pulled anything out of the bag.
Posted by kalniel - Mon 19 Jul 2010 12:07
borandi
Intel will just flash their hyperthreading.
Which is also present on their cheaper quad core parts.

It's a lot better than it used to be; on a dual i7 920 workstation, I easily get 13-14x speed up over 16 threads than just one, and that's on memory intensive simulation software.
And likewise - memory intensive stuff is quite well catered for with the cheaper i7 parts like yours.

There's a reason for Intel pricing their hexacore so high - performance. It's that much better than any AMD hexacore offering. Even the 920 beats the 1055T/1090T in the majority of heavy workload benchmarks. Intel won't release a hex-core processor for less than £700 any time soon until AMD can get its work done per clock a lot higher. Which will probably be Bulldozer, if they've pulled anything out of the bag.
It's a question of markets though - if you're going for ultimate performance then you get the extreme edition chip. Otherwise people in the desktop market tend to go for ‘enough’ performance, rather than the most, in which case it becomes performance per buck or watt etc. and that itself tends to be optimised towards either multi-core workloads or instructions per core-clock, neither of which suit this new chip.
Posted by borandi - Mon 19 Jul 2010 12:16
kalniel
And likewise - memory intensive stuff is quite well catered for with the cheaper i7 parts like yours.

Well, it's the Xeon equivalents (E5520), so not exactly cheap, but I didn't pay for it. Perks of the job and all that.

It's a question of markets though - if you're going for ultimate performance then you get the extreme edition chip. Otherwise people in the desktop market tend to go for ‘enough’ performance, rather than the most, in which case it becomes performance per buck or watt etc. and that itself tends to be optimised towards either multi-core workloads or instructions per core-clock, neither of which suit this new chip.

This is true; any overclocker would plump the extra for the 980X, and the price difference between the quad i7 and hex i7 is so vast, it doesn't make sense for any regular consumer to go beyond a 920/930, if they're going the Intel route. Intel must see a market, but their hex offerings would have to come down to sub 300 to be more impressive. The only way that is going to happen is if AMD pull a halo product out of the blue.

SEE NEWER »