Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Intel's Core i7-980X Six-Core Benchmarked 179

Ninjakicks writes "Although they won't hit store shelves for a few more weeks, today Intel has officially unveiled the new Core i7-980X Extreme processor. The Core i7-980X Extreme is based on Intel's 32nm Gulftown core, derived from their Nehalem architecture and sports six execution cores. The chip runs at a 3.33GHz clock frequency, that can jump up to 3.6GHz in Intel's Turbo Boost mode. This processor has a max TDP of 130W, which amazingly is the same as previous generation Core i7 quad-core CPUs. Of course, it's crazy fast too. Some may say that the majority of applications can't truly take advantage of the resources afforded by a six-core chip capable of processing up to 12 threads. However, the fact remains there are plenty of multi-threaded usage models and applications where the power of a CPU like this can be put to very good use."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel's Core i7-980X Six-Core Benchmarked

Comments Filter:
  • by Targon ( 17348 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @08:41AM (#31436768)

    I know there are SOME people out there who have $1000 to spend on just a CPU, but until these come down a long way in terms of price, it is WAY out of my price range.

  • Cool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @08:45AM (#31436802) Homepage

    Now to see what AMDs 6-core offering is like. I know that Intel destroys AMD in performance benchmarks and real-world performance, but AMD is FAR less expensive. If I was pushing an Eyefinity setup or something, then sure, I would go all out and drop a few hundred dollars or more on an Intel CPU. Considering that AMDs current flagship costs $195 [] and is still a heck of a performer...yeah, I'll stick with AMD for now.

  • by rotide ( 1015173 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @08:50AM (#31436842)

    All new bleeding edge CPUs are expensive. That's not the point of the article/submission. The point here is that a very fast 6 core, 12 thread consumer level processor is now on the market.

    Price will come down in due time.

  • Reminds me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gaelfx ( 1111115 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @09:18AM (#31437038)
    This really reminds me of the recent Ask Slashdot article lamenting the naming schemes being implemented for most pieces of hardware. i7= 4 or 6 cores. Makes sense since the first thing I think when I hear 7 is "must be 4 or 6!" And the '980' really goes a long way towards confirming that initial suspicion. I'm really glad they put the 'extreme' in there, cause I was worried about the numbers being too low. Seriously though, can't they come up with a name that is actually descriptive of the product rather than a bunch of reassurances about the awesome-o amazingness of their processor? It seems to me that most people ask someone who knows something about computers when they need to buy a new one or replacement parts for their old one, and I don't know about the rest of you, but I really hate names that give me no real information about what the heck I'm buying. Yes, I can google the information, but the whole practice seems immature (and sometimes a little insulting).
  • by Vectormatic ( 1759674 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @09:19AM (#31437056)

    hey, i never said AMD was more expensive then Intel, and i bet you that if they could charge $1000 for their top end, they would (and they should, milking the high end is the easiest way to recoup dev costs)

    personally i prefer AMD because of their price/performance ratio too, and they have consistently kicked intels but there

  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @10:50AM (#31438494) Journal
    Really the point is that this isn't aimed at a typical desktop user. A lot of the applications that this will be used for will easily use 12 threads. I know our 4 core i7 is great for compiling and our project is relatively small. Probably pretty good for rendering as well.
  • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <> on Thursday March 11, 2010 @12:32PM (#31440366) Homepage Journal

    "Rendering farms?"

    Those would be handled by massively parallel GPU clusters, not slower than crap CPUs.

  • Re:Reminds me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bdenton42 ( 1313735 ) on Thursday March 11, 2010 @01:31PM (#31441292)

    i7= 4 or 6 cores. Makes sense since the first thing I think when I hear 7 is "must be 4 or 6!"

    Some of the i7 models for mobile use only have 2 cores, just to confuse things even further.

  • Dude make it into a file server or netbox. no reason to toss when KVMs are dirt cheap, I think I paid $24 for my 4 port at Newegg with cables. I am typing this on a Sempron 1.8Ghz with 1.5Gb of RAM, which makes for a whisper quiet netbox/downloader without needing to fire up my quad.

    So don't toss dude, re-purpose. As long as it still runs good and doesn't throw errors there is no reason you can't still get plenty of use out of it as a file server, netbox, or a dedicated box for downloading large files. Just add a nice cheap KVM and you are good to go and you'll be glad you have it, just as I am glad to have this whisper quiet Sempron for checking my email or downloading files at 3AM.

  • by Zeio ( 325157 ) on Friday March 12, 2010 @01:10AM (#31448948)

    I'd buy it on sight if it supported ECC. No ECC support = unstable system. I always have an ECC system, and I always get high "3DMarks" and frame rates and I never get a BSOD or other system errors.

    Without ECC its impossible to know if memory errors are occurring, and 12GB of memory at 1333/1600MHz probably has a single bit event quite often.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!