Core I9 Gulftown @ 4.6Ghz on Air

http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131

It's an I9. Program just doesn't know what an I9 is.

1.475V though? What's the vcore limit on 32nm?

I want one of these bad boys.... but really, was the air pre-chilled with LN2 or something? Now way that should be possible with SIX cores...

And yes, CPU-Z reads it as an i7 simply because every CPU has to be manually inserted into the program. Check the cores and threads... 6 cores, 12 threads, say hello to the i9.

6 cores at 5.0ghz, whats the world cumming to

4.6 GHz on air.......... man i want that cpu. (then again who doesn't)

I laughed at the LN2 comment.

I agree this is very impressive, I hope these come in at a decent price point.

i fixed it for you


And yet we see Core i9 w/ 6 cores, 12 threads overclocked to 4.6ghz on air, while we see Phenom II 965 barely overclocked to 3.8Ghz~4.0Ghz on air w/ 4 cores, 4 threads.

Double standard.. I see

uh, this is 32nm, almost 15nm less than current gen, u cant compair oc numbers, and im willing to believe this air was colder than usual 22*c ambient

Well, as was pointed out above it took 1.47 to get there....I can get my 920 C0 that high for a screenshot if I'm willing to fry it. Notice coretemp is already in the 50s with 0 load. I have high hopes for the i9, but as always we shouldn't buy into any hype until they actually release.

It's pretty good yes, but we are talking about a professional overclocker here. For me that is worth at least 500mhz, possibly even more.

6 cores at 4ghz is nothing to be sneezed at of course, but I think that will probably end up being a lot higher than the average 6 core cpu gets near.

How does it compare to the 750? I would never touch the 775 chips with a 10 foot pole these days.

There are very mixed reviews of the 620, but comparing it to a chip nobody buys is not a good way to review it. Compare it to the other cpus in the same price range and you'll see it is at best a sideways move. It is not optimized to compete with "real" quad cores, and it is too slow and lacks good overclocking ability to compete with the dual cores in the same price range. Its just a marketing ploy.

AMD's main focus is on the value segment. I mean tbh, they haven't touched Intel's top end for quite some time. It makes sense that they compete in another area that they will have more success in.

A quad for 99$ is a great deal, even tho it lacks L3 cache, but it's performance is admirable for the price.

I mean, now people who were reluctant to upgrade due to budget constraints can get a decent performing quad-core comp for ~500$, that is a great deal.

The next closest quad is the Q8200, at ~160.

lol...okay, I'm glad you said it. I was going to avoid that. What I meant by mixed reviews is that I haven't seen anything yet that shows it performs better than the 550BE or Intels $100 duals when you take into account their higher clocks and better overclocking. At stock speed the results are mixed, with the 620 winning a few, and the duals winning a few. So my point was, it doesn't GAIN anything over what we already have. Its just another decent choice at an already crowded price point. Marketing wise it might work...people are already buying into the gimmick.

The difference between both CPU's is easy, the 620 is a weak quad that should be able to achieve at least 3.5Ghz on Air, but it has no real cache and that is the downside... The 550 might unlock to a stable quad and if not you still end up with a fast dual that has a good amount of L3...

It's like having a crappy dual "cheeseburger" nothing special ........ Something similar to an Agena......

Here is the link :

AMD Athlon II X4 620 Propus 2.6GHz 4 x 512KB L2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Product

Do you have any links that show the 620 beating Intels top duals?

I'm Going to call a 130TDP

If it overclocks this well and was built on 32nm anyway, why didn't they just make the damn thing a 4,2 ghz quadcore instead of a 2.66ghz sixcore , then it would actually be useful for non-professional purposes...

4.6 is expected concidering its a 32nm part

xaria - if that pic is true then its still got a bit to go - AMD needs ~400mhz more for desktop apps to beat an Intel, and on the server side its designed for, an 16 threaded Intel rig destroys a 16 core AMD rig if i remember correctly, but still, if its true then glory ahead

and i9 TDP - these things do idle verry well so you will rarely see that TDP reached under load because there are so many cores etc atleast theoretically.

Just put together gaming capable machine quote for under £450 for everything included , Pc, monitor 19", KB,Mouse, 2.1 speakers including Vista Home premium, and could not do it with decent performance from intel build, but got a level balanced machine with AMD/ATI build...

Mind you, If budget was for box only, it would have been a different story with intel i5 in the picture.