Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:17 am

It's almost here. And expensive ($999). 3.33 GHz, 6 cores, 12 threads.

It uses Intel's new 32nm manufacturing process to cram 6 cores into the same die size as a quad-core i7 900 series. It also shares the same 1366-pin socket X58 chipset as the quad core i7 900s. Which is awesome for those of us with one of those i7s already in our machine.

The new chip's architecture (Gulftown) brings together some of the best attributes of Intel's preceeding Nehalem architectures. It offers Bloomfield's on-die triple-channel memory controller and excellent PCIe controller, but also integrates Clarkdale's and AES-NI hardware acceleration.

Another nice benefit is that, even when less than 6 cores are being used, the cores that are in use still benefit from the bigger L3 cache (12MB vs 8, scaled perfectly at 2 per core).

Anyway, soon (a few weeks according to Intel) you'll be able to have a 6-core chip in your desktop. I'm looking forward to picking one up once prices drop in a year or two. It'll make a nicely scaled upgrade for my existing system.

Post by **RCA** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:23 am

So much for that argument of "processors evolve because of need".Are people really in need for a 6 core i7?

Awesome news none the less. I have heard rumors that the 980X would be a i9 but yea can't wait to see the bench marks.

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:55 pm

RCA wrote:So much for that argument of "processors evolve because of need".Are people really in need for a 6 core i7?

Awesome news none the less. I have heard rumors that the 980X would be a i9 but yea can't wait to see the bench marks.

My argument was that multi-core processors evolveD due to need. Not that that is still the case. That said, TomsHardware's benchmarking of the 980X and 975X (975X is quad core and 8MB L3 cache and 45nm but other than that almost identical to the 980X) shows some definite gains in certain areas. So, yes, depending on what you do with your machine, you may "need" 6 cores if you're in need of a performance boost. It isn't really a cost-effective upgrade for gamers versus serious video hardware until the price drops, though.

And, like I said, the extra cores aren't the only benefit. More shared L3 cache benefits everything you run, even if it only uses one thread. And the 32nm manufacturing process keeps the more complex chip about as efficient as the 975X.

Post by **Looneybomber** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:39 am

I wonder if it'll support HD audio bitstream like the Clarksdale (LGA1156 i3, 5,& 7) chips, which is pretty big in the HTPC world. Granted, this chip is way more than what would be needed in a good HTPC, but with more and more folks using their HTPC's for more than just movie/tv watching, including gaming, video editing, etc... having that HD bitstream feature would be nice!

Post by **RCA** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:04 am

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
My argument was that multi-core processors evolveD due to need. Not that it is still the case...

And, like I said, the extra cores aren't the only benefit. More shared L3 cache benefits everything you run, even if it only uses one thread.

Ahh, I see. My apologies MoD.

Quick Q, what is L3 cache's job? I have read this term a lot but wasn't 100% sure what it is.

Post by **PoorManQ45** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:22 am

Awesome. I guess I better sell my stock of i7-975s and w5590s before the price drops like a rock again! Don't want another 965 price drop!!!!

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:17 pm

RCA wrote: Ahh, I see. My apologies MoD.

Quick Q, what is L3 cache's job? I have read this term a lot but wasn't 100% sure what it is.

L3 (or L2 or L1...L stands for level, to differentiate the different successive levels of cache memory) cache is a small memory reserve that directly serves the CPU. Processor cache can become a choke point if memory throughput is below the processor's actual data-handling capability. So more cache memory is always better. But at the same time, with on-die (faster than off-die) cache, space becomes an issue. There's another place where the new 32nm process helped fit a lot of chip on an existing die.The L3 cache is shared between ALL cores. So there's a benefit as far as memory goes when processing on fewer cores.

Post by **chemao** » Mon May 24, 2010 9:43 pm

Pointless unless you run applications that are ridiculously multithreaded. 99% of what you do won't even touch the 3rd core.

Post by **PoorManQ45** » Tue May 25, 2010 10:52 pm

chemao wrote:Pointless unless you run applications that are ridiculously multithreaded. 99% of what you do won't even touch the 3rd core.

Right... I take it you have never used more then one monitor?

If you have then you'd know that you are going to be running atleast two programs side by side.

I am currently using a 42" screen and like to watch a movie in one corner, surf the internet on most of the rest of the screen, torrent, act as a file server, and a few other things in the background. Yes, I hit my core 1055t.

Oh, and I play games too. CPU usage spikes to ~70% at times on all cores. BTW, both Intel and AMD incorporate a turbo mode for individual cores. This increases the clock speed when only one or two cores are needed. I currently have my 1055t OC'd to 3.4Ghz with turbo set to 3.8Ghz

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Tue May 25, 2010 11:46 pm

Yeah, I usually have a movie or some music playing on one monitor while playing a game on the other. On top of background stuff (obviously optimized but you can't get rid of all of it). Skype+movie+game+browser. If any of those can make use of more than one core...
Obviously the benfits of multicore is highly dependent on OS process management effectiveness. But Win7 has demonstrated a fairly decent grasp of managing threads and processes.

I have a little thread/memory monitoring widget on my 2nd monitor which is pretty telling when running lots of programs at once. I'll get 2 or 3 or 4 low-demand threads going, and 2 or 3 or 4 high demand threads going. Just efficient process management.

And, anyway, as I mentioned before, there are more benefits to hexacore chips than a 50% core increase over quad core (or quad over dual). The i7 975x has an 8MB shared L3 cache. 980x has 12MB. Which means, whether you're using 12 threads or one core, you're going to benefit there. AMD doesn't increase L3 cache size from quad to hexacore models, though. 6MB shared across the board.

Post by **n00b240** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:26 pm

At times of peak "productivity" I wish I had a 3rd monitor and an i7. My Core2duo and 2gigs of ram can hold up quite well, as it has been for the past 3, nearly 4 years. So at 999 bucks, I'll have to let the prices drop a bit. Something is telling me to wait till next year tho, and then I'll build the most bang for the buck

Post by **PoorManQ45** » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:13 pm

if you watch www.slickdeals.net and don't mind refurbished units you can pick up an i7 based system for close to $500-$600

Post by **RCA** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:08 pm

Hey what's the deal with the 6 core Xeons?

They are more expensive than the i7 980Xs

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/rev ... enchmarked

Post by **PoorManQ45** » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:33 pm

RCA wrote:Hey what's the deal with the 6 core Xeons?
They are more expensive than the i7 980Xs

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/rev ... enchmarked

Xeons have features that servers use. One of the biggest being support for ECC memory. This is almost never found in desktops so it is not included in the consumer varients. There are a few other features that I can't think of though...

Post by **RCA** » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:34 am

Well they have mobos for Xeons and Apple sells desktops on them so why would one person buy an i7 over a quad core Xeon.
I guess I am looking for pros vs cons.

Also that "Classified" mobo can accept up to 96GB of Ram...WHOA!

Post by **PoorManQ45** » Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:44 pm

Honestly they're just two completely different products in terms of their market share.

The Xeon is for Servers.

The i7 is for consumers.

They are both built on the same core/

The Xeon has every feature that the base i7 has and more.

Like I said, the biggest feature I can think of is ECC memory support. That is Error Correction Algorithm.

The Xeon may also allow for more memory ranks then the standard i7. That is partially how it's capable of supporting up to, IIRC, 96GB per CPU. Now, I am not going to explain ranking as it get very complicated.

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:45 pm

RCA wrote:Well they have mobos for Xeons and Apple sells desktops on them so why would one person buy an i7 over a quad core Xeon."

Same reason you can go buy a Dodge Ram or a Sterling Bullet. Most people wouldn't know a Bullet if it bit them in the face. But it's there. Different markets, basically the same product. Sterlings come with commercial-grade support, which means better hours, less downtime, as necessitated by the business world.

Post by **Micron** » Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:22 pm

The differences:

The Xeon supports buffered and error controlled memory... The key method Xeon chipsets are able to support more memory is that they require a bank of DIMMs for EACH CPU, since the memory controllers are within the CPUs. And also bus links to allow for more processor sockets and/or DIMM slots.

It also had a pair of QPI links from the CPU to the chipset, to allow for multiple processors. The i7 only has a single link, and X58 chipset only supports a single.

Aside from those two things, there's really no difference. (The Xeons do have certain clock speeds, wattage draws, QPI speeds and cache sizes not available to i7s... but functionally they are the SAME) There aren't any "enhanced features" unless you move up to the Xeon EX processors.

Post by **stebo0728** » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:36 pm

They need to work on improving the bus latency before worrying about jacking up GHz, whats the use in being able to push all those calculations if the results get bottlenecked?

Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. I7 980X

FN-QR

Re: FN-QR (RCA)

Re: FN-QR (MinisterofDOOM)

Re: FN-QR (MinisterofDOOM)

Re: FN-QR (RCA)

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Re: Oh, yeah! 6-core Intel. i7 980X

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums