also @ TechSpot: Kodak maintained an underground nuclear reactor for over 30 years

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

By

On March 11, 2010, 10:07 AM EST

Intel officially launched today its first hexa-core desktop processor, the Core i7 980X Extreme Edition. As previously reported, the codenamed Gulftown chip features six 32nm cores clocked at 3.33GHz, reaching a maximum Turbo Boost clock speed of 3.6GHz for single-threaded operations, it has a massive 12MB L3 cache, and is capable of running 12 threads simultaneously with Intel's Hyper-threading technology.

With the exception of support for some new instructions dubbed AES-NI (Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions), which accelerate AES encryption and decryption algorithms in hardware, everything else remains the same as Bloomfield. This means a triple channel controller supporting DDR3 memory at up to 1066MHz (although it will easily run higher speeds), and the QPI link running at a full 6.4GT/s.


Despite offering 50% more cores and 50% more cache than previous generation Bloomfield processors, the new Core i7 980X maintains the same 130W power envelope thanks to the newer 32nm process. It also shares the same LGA-1366 socket, so the chip will be fully compatible with existing X58 motherboards after a BIOS update.

The Core i7 980X will essentially replace the 45nm Core i7 975 Extreme Edition as Intel's new flagship. While the latter will still be available, the new six-core processor will be offered at the same $999 price point, making it quite simply the most powerful and advanced desktop processor money can buy. Check out some reviews at AnandTech, PC Perspective, and The Tech Report.

No tags on this story

User Comments (89)

Post a comment
Wagan8r
on March 11, 2010
10:18 AM

ME WANT!!!

ME WALLET NO WANT!!!

ARG!!!

But seriously, this processor is a nice leap in computing capacity. 12 threads of execution sounds delicious!

Reply

Trillionsin
on March 11, 2010
10:24 AM

wagan8r said:

ME WANT!!!

ME WALLET NO WANT!!!

ARG!!!

But seriously, this processor is a nice leap in computing capacity. 12 threads of execution sounds delicious!

Hahah!

I want it too, and I have a i7 950 with 4 cores. 8 virtual with hyper-threading.

...and I thought I had overkill.. is there anything that would need the new i7 980???

Reply

Yoda8232
on March 11, 2010
10:34 AM

It's good, best CPU now, but still should have a higher clock speed. In 2000 we hit the 1GHz mark. In 2004 we made it to 3.8GHz. Now 6 years later down to 3.33GHz. The power consumption is great on this thing!

Reply

DryIce
on March 11, 2010
10:37 AM

Wow. Think about running 12 threads at the same time. But I agree with Yoda8232, lets hope they increase the clock speed.

Reply

TomSEA
on March 11, 2010
10:38 AM

This is going into my purchasing queue for next spring when I do my next upgrade.

Reply

Geek4life
on March 11, 2010
10:47 AM

Great,,,, but first we need games and applications that take advantage of Quad core CPU's. It's all about balance you must have a great GPU with a great CPU otherwise you are spinning your wheels.

Reply

BlindObject
on March 11, 2010
10:50 AM

So, how does it run Crysis? =D

Reply

Guest
on March 11, 2010
10:51 AM

6 cores even a 4GHz is really not of much use to me, especially not at that price. I'd kill for a 5+GHz quad core though.

Reply

PaulWuzHere
on March 11, 2010
10:59 AM

YES! Now powerful computing is in the hands of everyday people. At $99.9 this is a steal... wait... oh... never mind, That was AMD.

On a serious note, what % of the market will this CPU fall in? I think these CPUs are just Intel saying "Yup we did it." Showoffs lol.

New slogan - i7 980, You'll be in debt!

Reply

seefizzle
on March 11, 2010
11:01 AM

I'll wait for AMD to make a six core processor that's half the price.

Reply

fref
on March 11, 2010
11:17 AM

Saw some gaming benchmarks for this new processor, and six cores don't help at all for gaming. The games were running at pretty much the same frame rate as with the i7 975 (if I recall correctly), which is a quad core processor. So make sure your applications will benefit before buying a 6 core CPU.

Reply

Vicenarian
on March 11, 2010
11:34 AM

This is basically aimed at corporate/business consumers; video editing/encoding, etc. 3D rendering, etc. and other high end uses. No consumer needs a nearly $1000.00 processor...with the state the world is in today e.g. people without even clean drinking water, I couldn't imagine spending that much on a processor...

A core i5 is plenty.

Reply

Guest
on March 11, 2010
11:36 AM

I will stick with my 965 extreme clocked at 4Ghz But seriously I think most people would rather have a higher clock speed then 2 more cores. However this would be great for anyone that does a lot of virtualization like VMWare and Virtual PC.

Reply

Neojt
on March 11, 2010
11:38 AM

Really are we there yet!!!

check this out in 6 months its going to be 345$ hook this un with a pair a Nvidia GTX ....... gaming at another level

strating to save money to get one ....NOW!

Reply

natefalk
on March 11, 2010
11:38 AM

Very impressive and I want one.

To bad I just bought a 1156 socket mobo. I'm sure in a couple years the price will be reasonable. Remember when the Core2 Quads were released? They were initially $999 and now you can get one for $200.

I can't wait for the i9's to get released.

Reply

rskapadia2294
on March 11, 2010
11:39 AM

the specs are great! 12 threads simultaneously! dats a great deal! but we would have to take a loan to buy it! lol! seriously they should decrease the price! at $999 we can build a whole gaming rig that smoothly runs WoW! waiting for the prices to fall!

Reply

Norino
on March 11, 2010
11:41 AM

Nice move..

i thought it won't be released this soon..

Intel is the best.. but i still like AMD more..

Reply

mattfrompa
on March 11, 2010
11:43 AM

seefizzle said:

I'll wait for AMD to make a six core processor that's half the price.

Yes, with 1/3 the cache, and performance more in line with Intel quad cores...

Reply

princeton
on March 11, 2010
11:53 AM

+1 AMD cpus although cheap are cheap for a reason. AMD has fallen because their high end parts still get beaten by the intel i5-750.

Reply

compdata
on March 11, 2010
12:01 PM

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.

Reply

compdata
on March 11, 2010
12:03 PM

princeton said:

+1 AMD cpus although cheap are cheap for a reason. AMD has fallen because their high end parts still get beaten by the intel i5-750.

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.

Reply

yello88
on March 11, 2010
12:21 PM

"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...

Reply

ryan29121
on March 11, 2010
12:21 PM

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.

Reply

slh28
on March 11, 2010
12:48 PM

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...

Yoda8232 said:

It's good, best CPU now, but still should have a higher clock speed. In 2000 we hit the 1GHz mark. In 2004 we made it to 3.8GHz. Now 6 years later down to 3.33GHz. The power consumption is great on this thing!

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

Reply

CodePhoeniX
on March 11, 2010
12:52 PM

I'm Just waiting for AMD's Bulldozer.

Reply

Browse more commented news

Post a new comment

Guest user

To post as an anonymous
user click here
.

Members

If you are a TechSpot member,
please login first.


By signing up you gain complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of computer and technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Post messages, get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.

Follow TechSpot

Feeds & More Newsletter