6 Cores. 12 Threads. Say Hello to Intel's Gulftown!

Great CPU for benchmarking or heavy workstation applications. Waste of money for a gaming rig... at this point in time anyways.

would be much better if they can make it cheaper

Only $167 per core....let me see this amounts to about $1002 for a processor. Looks good, wish the price was more affordable.

Looks awesome. I'll be waiting until a more reasonably priced non-Extreme version of this comes out, but when it does I will definitely be building a new rig to replace my current Q6600 setup.

anyway you can build a dual socket i7 920 8 cores/12 threads platform which is better than 980 and you remain with almost half of the money in your pocket...and about power consumption :
2 i7 920 must work 4 years non-stop in full load to consume the difference in money of i7 980
in 4 years i7 980 will be just a piece of metal with no value

6, 8, 12, 48 cores/threads - it doesn't matter. Programming is lagging far far behind to even utilize these things. We are stuck in an era where most programs are still single core oriented and dual is the new/current trend for games! Unless I am a number cruncher, statistician, programmer, etc, what good does it do to have these when a majority of people will spend their time watching all these extra cores.......idle? I wish more than a core count race, that someone would find the way to break the barrier and be able to up the speed past the 3-3.5 Ghz barrier we have been stuck at for years now. Thumbs up for the cool factor just to have one though, not much else.

Heck, I should be able to buy this when the price becomes reasonable, say in about 3-4 years. Of course, by then it'll be outdated technology.

I'm just kidding. It's Intel, so I plan on never buying it, regardless of the price.

Wrong! 3D rendering, graphics and video editing applications are heavily threaded and until they get moved to the GPU, a multicore CPU is the best tool for the job. This CPU might be too expensive for the performance gains it offers but that's normal for top-of-the-line Intel Extreme Edition.

I believe AMD has a 6 core processor but it does not have hyperthreading.

Intel already has 6 core single die cpus too they are just in the server market. AMD's 6core opteron came out july 1st 09 (on paper at least).

Id like to reiterate my support for this 6 core desktop cpu that I uttered (er typed) in the review of its performance here on THG. I wont be buying one but thats only because Im honestly waiting for the 8 core w/HT to come out. Maybe if I start saving now I'll have the money next year or 2012 when it comes out.

I think I covered this when mentioning the "number cruncher, statistician, programmer, etc," part.

When CUDA and Stream really start taking off, then these processors may become more and more irrelevant as time passes. As to the "3D rendering, graphics and video editing" people out there, what percent of these people are the majority, everyday users out there? These and the CPUs that follow (carrying even more multiples of cores) will be strictly for the server/business/R&D/Hollywood role while the 95% of the rest of the computing world has no use due to programming not taking full advantage of them. Face it, Intel and AMD are ahead of themselves because no one has figured out how to make the x86 processors clock faster, so they're increasing core count in return!

Wish i was well off, I would purchase one.

waiting for amd to drop theirs in may

In the sense of having 6 cores? Yes. In the sense of speed? Not even close.

I want to play Crysis, and I was wondering if anyone knows how well it runs on this CPU?

You are severely under estimating the difficulty in parallel processing. It isn't just flipping a switch and magically you use more cores. Programming distributed applications is difficult and only useful in certain situations. Some situations are impossible to run on multiple cores, some are not worth the extra over head needed to spread the computing on other cores, and some situations are great for parallel processing.

The real benefit behind this is multi-tasking. Being able to run more programs at once without slowing to a crawl. Having your anti-virus start a scan without you even noticing is the real benefit. Some programs can benefit from more cores directly, but having more cores will benefit everyone, just need to wait for it to come down in price.

Don't you feel sorry for everyone that's purchased a Core i7 Extreme Edition 975. Reading this is article would me sick!

After reading the review, there is no doubt that this 6 core chip is a monster, especially in terms of productivity. It's just a shame that it has a $1K price tag. Hopefully the planned 8 core Sandy Bridge chips are a bit cheaper when they are released.

You are just helping to prove my point with this statement. This right here would be an example of why core count is not the answer to a faster computer because of the speed wall chip makers have hit. When it boils down to it, everything benefits from core speed, but most programs (for the reasons you pointed out) do not from core count - which is what we're talking about here.


With this in mind, will the same mentality be used when we hit 12 core processors, yet we are still at 3 Ghz? It has been proven that 3 cores is the sweet spot today. When was the last time you pegged your speedy quad core while playing the latest game, surfing the web, and so on - on a daily basis? I think when it comes down to it, I'm isolating in on perhaps intelligent assignment by the operating system for those programs that are not multi-threaded or don't need to be. How many programs, and what type will you be running to max out all six cores right now? RAM is the helping hand in this situation, it's there so the CPU doesn't have to work as hard doing its job.

Core count is good for those select situations that are a great benefit (counting industries mentioned earlier), but core speed will win against core count all of the time, while core count will win against core speed sometimes. I feel that the industry has not caught up with the core count craze yet, so the benefits are not there. Just because you go out and buy a 6 core CPU, that doesn't mean that you will be 600% faster - and that's a disappointing fact. When CUDA/Stream hit full stride, who knows what will happen to the CPU as we know it then!

ahahahahahahaha after buying this one the only crysis you'll be playing is a financial crysis...

What percentage of people overclock their processors or graphics cards? Yet almost every motherboard has overclocking features. Besides, this is not a processor for the average user. Most people would be fine with a dual core and wouldn't notice the difference in performance vs a quad core. Professionals who use 3D rendering software, movie editing software, Photoshop, etc do need multicore processing and they'll appreciate the increase in speed.

Awesome CPU for compiling millions of lines of C++ code. I'm getting one.

Nah. Tom's Hardware recommends AMD for graphics and CPU at every price point. That means they're better products.

yeah its true. i do lots of AE renders along with 3D and 4 cores sometimes isnt enough. 6 cores is 50% more power which can really show some improvement. however, it would be nice not to pay so much. i wonder how the hyperthread s AMD's non hyperthreaded CPU's will perform. I NEED SOME BENCHMARKS PEOPLE

A processor for the average user - no, not this one at least. Something like this does indeed have a market, which I mentioned myself as well as others. The concept of Intel and AMD telling you "more cores are better" - spills down to the mainstream parts though. We will likely see those 2.33 Ghz 6 core chips (non-Extreme of course). What I am saying though, is I would rather see them throw their R&D money at figuring out why they have hit a wall at the 3 Ghz spot rather than see who can splice as many cores together on a piece of silicon. They are using core count as an excuse because they haven't figured it out yet. The benefits of a faster single core far outpace that of a slower multi-core. I do not want to see in 5 years from now a 32 core 2.66 Ghz chip. I'd gladly fork over the cash for the 16 core 5.32 Ghz piece - you get the idea. Programs like 3D rendering software, movie editing software, Photoshop, etc - are already on the CUDA bandwagon. Everyone already knows that a GPU can obliterate a CPU at computations.....

Correction, first a 300watt gpu and now a $999 cpu...Is the market literally trying to give amd more R&D money. *Fixed

I think you're overestimating the importance of CPU frequency. My 3.2 GHz Celeron D was significantly slower than my 1.8Ghz Athlon 64. A Core i3 at 2.9GHz is significantly faster than an Athlon X2 @ 3.1GHz. If you're getting twice the performance every two years, who cares if it's more cores or higher frequency or better architecture.

For those complaining about "games/programs don't use more than 2 cores" - when was the last time you were even able to dedicate your entire system to running a single application? I'm pretty sure that we all have multiple programs open/running.... and now my web browser won't be slowed down or lose access to clock cycles because my word processor is also open, woot! Seriously though, with the way operating systems and users are today, more simultaneous processing power is still a good thing (and not entirely wasted - though cost efficiency is still way off).

"Nah. Tom's Hardware recommends AMD for graphics and CPU at every price point. That means they're better products."

Then why does a Phenom II 965 struggle behind an i5 750 in the $199 price race in numerous categories (apps/games) according to TH's charts?

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2545.html

Pages 4, 5 and 6 sure do mention Intel plenty.

AMD just lunched their real 12 core opteron processor, so whats so special about the 6 core core i7 ???? the six core opteron was lunched 1 year ago.