I'm Just waiting for AMD's Bulldozer.
High Clock speed doesn't matter. It is what you can do in each clock tick that really matters. High clock speeds actually impose a lot of issues with synchronization across the whole die and is a major reason for trying to keep it as low as possible.
there isnt even enough things that take advantage of 6 cores..this is not for average user..unless u got the $$$ or sell your old corrolla
Yea.. I dont think most appications even take advantage of quad core, but I dont really know that for a fact. Just a hunch...
I saw the benchmarks and this processor got beat by the phenom x4 in some tests, software just isn't ready for six cores at the moment.
Looks like Intel wants to boost many things at once...
I believe this product, the Core u7 980X Extreme Edition to be precise... will be manufactured mostly for researchers. For normal consumers, gamers in particular, you wont get any advantage on buying such a product.
This kind of product would be more proper for people that use intensive video/editing/compression/design sotware. Also for scientists or developers ( or whatever ) that need to take full power with intense CPU operations.
You might wonder why this kind of product does not benefit any gamer.. the answer is quite simple.. secondary memory, graphic cards, etc can't catch up with the processors. It won't do any good to have a monster processor if your software relies on it as much as secondary memory, I/O operations, and so forth..
If you are interested in spending your money, you could buy this product and you would probably need dual graphics cards (strong ones) to take advantage. If you are not interested, you could just buy a 200 usd processor, save 800 dollars, and have the same kind of good quality when playing games such as Crysis.
Also, depending of what kind of software you use... if the software is designed to take advantage of more Cores, the addition of more cores won't necessarily add improved perfomance either. See, there are things in programs that can be performed in parallel, but the addition of more cores reaches a point of diminishing return.
Until they start making games that utilize all these cores, I'll stick with quad.
That all depends on which benchmarks you're talking about. I've seen the ones you're referring to, though I've also seen them where the 980x extreme blows the phenom away in every test. I'm inclined to believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
wow'erz @ the performance!!
I wonder how it will perform in gaming though...
Intel's addition for improved performance when dealing with the symmetric block cipher AES in their hardware is appreciated, though. NSA will be very interested in building some clusters out of this product. Not only for using them specifically with encrypting software... but for research.
The SIMD AES-NI are a good feature, AES will still be around probably for another 10 years, and more. Recall that DES maintained effective status for classified data for perhaps 30 years with 56-bit keys. That being said, with these new instructions + these cores + principle of locality (50%+ caching) you are going to get a very strong product for AES x round operations.
Unfortunately, it also leads to more possibilities for cryptanalysis. Side-channel attempts will certainly be harder against AES, but this is more of a security measure on the hardware side since this type of attack ( cached-based timing for instance ) doesn't have anything to do with the encrypting algorithm.
I think more possibilities for cryptanalysis towards AES is a good thing, since we'll be assured ( if proofs of weakness shows up ) that new algorithms will come out for better security.
It's an amazing processor at an equally amazing price. Great for benchmarking but I don't think I would ever spend even half as much on a CPU.
I could make use of it Not all the time or on one program for sure, but I run out of cores and memory very quickly when i am running Picasa, Gimp (multiple filter plugins going at the same time), Adobe Lightroom, Mozy backups of my recently taken/edited pictures, with my wife watching Hulu and email running on another monitor (or doing video chating with her family). This may sound crazy, but with one primary computer in my bedroom and being a professional photographer working with very large image files, this very situation happens often. Currently when my wife wants to hang out i set her Hulu task to higher priority through the task manager so it doesn't lag, but it definitely does effect the efficiency of my tasks. I think i could fully make use of 6 cores and 12GB of RAM at the moment during peak usage times.
where can u get a quadcore cpu for $200?
and what speeds and cache are we talking?
im curious as i might go looking for one
If I could write some sane comment I would do this, but all I can say now is that I'm waiting for AMD new CPU too.
I am quite impressed, but I'll stick with AMD thanks, much cheaper.
Impressive, and at 999 dollars? wow.
Nice One! Hope one CPU like that will have all the advantages of i3/5/7 series to one!
I want this so badly but the price range just makes it inappropriate ill wait 6 months thanks you very much
The price on this is enormous. I was waiting to see how AMD does with their "apu" 32nm six core. The 1k price point tells me that I won't like their news one bit.
I would give everything I have, just to be rich so I could afford stuff like this
While awesome, by the time I could afford a 1 grand CPU they'll be on a twelve-core . What would that even be called? A dodeca-core? lol
Sadly I can't seem to find any boards that support dual-sockets for this chip. Not that I could afford the ~$2300 for /just/ two chips and the board should such a board exist, but it would be pretty sweet to have a 12-core machine for gaming.
Then I could finally play Crysis! Old joke is old, sorry.
Man, this thing really screams. In the review of it I read it beat the old quad core i7's by a huge margin in highly multi threaded tests like rendering/encoding. Also, they managed to get this thing up to 4.4 Ghz on water in about 10 minutes, which is pretty impressive. I will be interested to see how much this will beat the upcoming 6 core Phenom II by as well, as that may actually be a feasible upgrade for me.
Such overkill! I've have en E6300 running at stock for a while now accompanied by a 9600GT and it has done me fine. Granted i can't run games to their full graphical capacity, but it's easily good enough for me. And only 1/15th of the cost! =O
You will need to up the price for a dual socket. The 980X server equivalent will be the 56xx series Xeon CPU, which will be very much more expensive than the 980X. Of course this would require a suitable board like this EVGA WS once it arrives on the scene. Start saving your pennies.