6 Cores. 12 Threads. Say Hello to Intel's Gulftown!
The new Core i7-980X Extreme Edition processor costs $167 per core or $83 per thread.
Today at the Game Developers Conference, Intel previewed platforms featuring the latest Core i7-980X Extreme Edition processor, codenamed "Gulftown," the first 32nm, six-core processor with 12 computing threads.
We've put the shiny new Extreme processor through its paces inside our labs and we're mighty impressed that the Core i7-980X met our high expectations. Of course, at a cost of $1,000 per CPU, anything less than the fastest would have been a disappointment.
Check out a rundown of the latest and greatest from Intel with a walkthrough by Chris Angelini:
For the full story, check out our full review here.
Stay tuned for more Gulftown coverage as we're currently working on a Gulftown vs. Bloomfield showdown.

ahahahahahahaha after buying this one the only crysis you'll be playing is a financial crysis...
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
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).
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!
In the sense of having 6 cores? Yes. In the sense of speed? Not even close.
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.
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!