TechSpot

Rumor: Intel Core i7 990X Extreme coming next month

By Jos
Aug 18, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. Intel's fastest desktop processor on the market, the Core i7 980X, remains unattainable for most people at its current $1,000 price range, but that isn't stopping the company from releasing a quicker successor sometime next month. According to TechPowerUp, the Core i7 990X will be based on a new stepping of Intel's 32nm Gulftown architecture. It will feature the same six cores and twelve threads, but clock speeds have been upped from 3.33GHz to 3.46GHz.

    Read the whole story
     
  2. edison5do

    edison5do TS Rookie Posts: 239

    I feel like in jurasic park with all this Beats and Monster Chips around!!!.... :p
     
  3. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,716

    This kinda sucks. With cpus like the i7-920 we were getting really close to having ram run at the same clock speed as cpus. Now we're set back a whole GHZ with these new chips. Also intel should really introduce a lower level 6 core.
     
  4. Ah, only a thousand dollars, give five please :S
     
  5. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90


    i think you have missed the point, The 4 Ghz wall was hit many years ago and the industry took architectural design in a new direction, more cores,faster multi channel ram, better chipsets,new instructions sets, etc. A top of the line 3.7 Ghz pentium is nowhere near as 'fast' as one of the low end multi cores we have now running at lower speeds. Silicon based computing has reached close to its theoretical limits, and until the next breakthrough ie potassium, niobium, oxygen chromium ions, Carbon nanotubes etc. +/- 4Ghz is all your going to get for CPU speeds. Well stock anyway.
     
  6. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,915   +718

    The server version of the 990X ( the X5690) that's just been released seems quite happy at 5GHz. This very quick validation done on the CPU's release date.
     
  7. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90


    aha! I said stock :p:wave: and Is that on air?
    Everything I have been able to devour has silicon tapped out somewhere between 4-4.5Ghz frequency (without exotic cooling) even now OC'ing is a diminishing return scenario in a big way. I have no technical data, but it does seem that once you get over or around 3.6Ghz , it really drops off. an array of materials are and have been experimented with and are in the cue to be introduced(it appears) around the time the 18-16nm limit is reached, which is almost here. (and yes i am using silicon in a generic way)
    Does that line up with what you read Chef?

    ******This is exactly the kind of stuff that lead me to go back to school****
     
  8. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,915   +718

    Pretty much. Rockwell on 16nm is likely to be getting to the verge of transistors being just a few molecules (or atoms) long (11nm is near the absolute limit I believe at this point in time), which from a process standpoint probably presents some major difficulties in getting consistancy in transistor length (amongst others)

    Here's Fit's benchmarking with the X5790 (I inadvertantly originally posted the CPU as the X5677. I think he's running one of each while simultaneously attempting to OC triple GTX 480's.http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1994338&postcount=1687 No mean feat. They could be under water-he seem to have 3 rigs going at the moment ( one using EK Supreme HF waterblocks, 1 using Noctua NH-D14 air, 1 using Thermaltake Frio air)
    Rustyballzz already has a 980X at 5.1GHz on air validated, so with a higher multi, 5GHz on air wouldn't be out of the question. Getting two of them to that OC on the same board while linked together might take some doing though.

    I thinks it generally accepted that core speed above 4GHz isn't generally useful for any real world apps. Certainly gaming seldom benefits from 3.6GHz +. The other major consideration is voltage and amperage required to get (and keep) a CPU running at that speed. Do you think AMD would face an uphill battle to market a 250w Phenom II ? (likewise Intel's Core i7)
     
  9. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

    I read this great story a while back and didn't save it when I blasted my system. It was that IBM was already playing with 22nm process and were having problems already with consistent signaling you were alluding to with trans length. They will probably work it out, but the end is near for CPU process as we know it. It would not surprise me at all if SOI and High K MG were a memory.
     
  10. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,265   +42


    There are ram chips as fast as processors being sold today. Why are you singling out the 920. I'm not even sure the 920 gives you the best bang for your buck. Not to mention its phased out now. The days of trying to achieve a 1:1 ratio of fsb/dram frequency is over. It died with the 775 line of cpus.
     
  11. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    This is a nice cpu but why bother with sandy bridge on its way?
     
     
  12. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,915   +718

    Maybe because the 990X is an six core, twelve thread CPU for the performance segment X58 chipset, and Sandy Bridge is (at most) a four core, eight thread CPU for the mainstream P67/H67 chipset.
    If the user needs a six-core CPU then likely it is because they can utilise it for multi-threaded applications. 12 thread + higher memory bandwidth will more often than not beat 8 thread + lower memory bandwidth.
    By the time Sandy Bridges' main advantage (AVX) can approach Core i7/X58 performance in multi-threaded apps, Sandy Bridge-E / Patsburg (X58 replacement CPU on LGA2011) will be use.
     
  13. actionjksn

    actionjksn TS Rookie

    Don't forget graphene, I think it may eventually enable faster clock speeds. I [and many others] have high hopes for it replacing silicon.
     
  14. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    i understand that i just mean why buy the $1k cpu when u could wait for sandy bridge x58 replacement early next year but thats just my opinion i would love to build a $3k rig and have the best on the block but look at my sig and you know i cant do that "yet" hehe
     
  15. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,915   +718

    The people who can afford a $1k CPU generally don't have a problem selling the system every six months- in fact if makes a kind of sense because usually all parts are still under warranty and the system will still fetch a good resale price because it is still near enough to "current tech". You also have to remember that the 990X (along with the 980X, 970, 975 XE and every other Core i7) is a salvage part that cannot meet the requirements to be labeled a workstation or server Xeon (W5680/X5680 in this case) and for some people represents a "mainstream" product that is readily affordable because they can't afford the uber-validated CPU. 99.999% of the computer buying customer base will never afford, justify the expense, quantify the benefits of, or have the need for such CPU's- nor do they know what requirements seperate a desktop, workstation or server part....however, it doesn't stop the same 99.999% of people pronouncing judgement.
     
  16. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,364   +9

    gotcha im going to build a new rig in February and hopefully it will destroy my current rig. I think i might go for the 970 vs the 980x since they both will clock well and do my needs plus i can get a nice setup that way and stay under $3k :)
     
  17. skitzo_zac

    skitzo_zac TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 459

    So, someone wanna lend me a couple thousand dollars? I'll pay you back I promise!
     
  18. huh....stupid things. Intel core i7 980x extreme edition runs st a clock speed of 3.3ghz. but the problem is it sucks a lot of electricity. using intel core 2 duo 2.93 ghz, i got an electric bill of around 15$. now this 980x ee hell has made my electric bill to be 100$. I have used it for the same time as i would do it on intel cor 2 duo. bloody hell.
     
  19. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,915   +718

    Lame troll.

    I suggest you switch to a battery powered girlfriend rather that using mains supply- you could then use on a pay-as-you-go basis.

    FYI
    980X peak system power 269w , idle 140w - 12 threads in use.....81.8% increase (peak)-worst case scenario since 12 thread usage is unlikely in most apps-, 23.9% increase (idle)
    E7500 peak system power 148w, idle 113w - 2 threads in use
     
  20. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 12,640   +322

    I don't know much about the internals of processors, but I do know a bit about crystal structures. The mono-crystalline Si wafers, which I think is what is in the processors have a basal spacing of the Si of 5.43 angstroms, so thats .543nm. Maybe its just the manufacturing processes that are the limiting factor? With a Focused Ion Beam I would think you can make cuts much smaller than 18nm, and the basal spacing of .543 nm shows there is a lot of headroom left there....
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.