Home › News › Hardware
Intel launches first six-core desktop processor, the $999 Core i7 980X Extreme Edition
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.
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! |
|
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??? |
|
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! |
|
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. |
|
TomSEA
on March 11, 2010 10:38 AM |
This is going into my purchasing queue for next spring when I do my next upgrade. |
|
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. |
|
BlindObject
on March 11, 2010 10:50 AM |
So, how does it run Crysis? =D |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
seefizzle
on March 11, 2010 11:01 AM |
I'll wait for AMD to make a six core processor that's half the price. |
|
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. |
|
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 $1000.00 processor...with the state the world is in today e.g. people without even clean drinking water, I couldn't imagine spending that much on a processor... A core i5 is plenty. |
|
Guest
on March 11, 2010 11:36 AM |
I will stick with my 965 extreme clocked at 4Ghz |
|
Neojt
on March 11, 2010 11:38 AM |
Really are we there yet!!! check this out in 6 months its going to be 345$ hook this un with a pair a Nvidia GTX ....... gaming at another level strating to save money to get one ....NOW! |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
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.. |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
CodePhoeniX
on March 11, 2010 12:52 PM |
I'm Just waiting for AMD's Bulldozer. |
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Genetically-engineered viruses may power devices of the future
-
AMD revamps APU offerings with Trinity
-
Lenovo announces world's thinnest Ultrabook, ThinkPad X1 Carbon
-
Apple drops new iPad's "4G" label, now called iPad + Cellular
-
Diablo III server debacle demonstrates the problem with ‘always-online’ games
