Intel launches first six-core desktop processor, the $999 Core i7 980X Extreme Edition

I could seriously use some of that computing power right about now I am specing a new system and the prospect of being able to get a hexa core processor down the road has me thinking much more about the X58 based motherboards to ensure that possibility. If they released a lower clocked Gulfstream that fit into the rest of the 900 series range i would gladly pay 50% more for the extra cores & cache.

I definitely want AMD to stay around for competition though. And at a CPU cost to performance comparison they do have some compelling chips. Unfortunately when you add in the whole system cost it switches back to Intel.

"A 32nm transistor can switch on and off over 300 billion times in one second. It would take you 4000 years to flick a light switch on and off that many times."

So in other words, Intel, you've created a power saver?
grats...

I was excited about the release of the quad core cpu. Mainly because the price was at around $300-400. A price tag of $999 for a 6-core, is way too much for a poor college student. I think I will be waiting until this price comes down significantly.

Oh man, I just can't wait to hand over my $1k to Intel so I can get their latest and greatest processor... I mean think of all the digits of pi I can calculate or the number of Monte Carlo simulations I could run in Excel, not to mention all those GB's of files which need to be zipped and unzipped in Winrar...

Higher clock doesn't mean better performance - not if you're comparing a Pentium 4 to an i7 processor.

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.