Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel's New Core I7-990X Extreme Edition Tested

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the sounds-a-little-core-nee dept.

Intel 149

MojoKid writes "Intel recently launched a speed bump of their flagship Extreme Edition Core i7 processor, known as the Core i7-990X. Its multiplier is unlocked and it's clocked at 3.45GHz stock speed with a Turbo Boost top-end speed of 3.73GHz. Intel claims its the fastest desktop chip on the planet; like geek tiger blood for your PC. The new Core i7-990X is also based on the 32nm Gulftown core and the performance metrics show it's easily the fastest 6-core chip for the desktop currently but of course it'll cost you as well."

cancel ×

149 comments

Tiger Blood (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405610)

This CPU will let you stand over noobs' exploded corpses.

Re:Tiger Blood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405674)

And then kick your ass like a Vatican Assassin Warlock

Help (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405678)

What's a good website where you can find out what my next CPU should be, while keeping in mind:

-power consumption
-ease of virtualization (I've heard some chips have that disabled)

Sorry for sounding like a noob, but it's been a while since I've been in the market for a CPU.

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405764)

Virtualization on the chip is a gimmick, you can use software virtualization that will work just fine.

Newegg.com is a good place to start looking at CPUs. Depending on your price range, (and power requirements) I'd suggest looking at an i5 or a Phenom II X4. Hard to say though, when you didn't tell us what those requirements are.

Re:Help (2)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405912)

No.

You need HW virt for Xen. Otherwise it's just QEMU which is slower.

Re:Help (2)

keeboo (724305) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406418)

You need HW virt for Xen. Otherwise it's just QEMU which is slower.

Wrong. You can also use Xen paravirtualization, which does not require HW assistance.

Re:Help (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407264)

And it uses QEMU for paravirtualization...

Re:Help (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407574)

Some people think it's just magic. Ah, kids these days.

Re:Help (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406056)

Hard to say though, when you didn't tell us what those requirements are.

Maybe because he didn't ask for what CPU to buy, he asked for a good site to go to for comparisons of various models. Newegg would NOT be that site, tomshardware and anandtech would be decent places to start.

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406800)

Virtualization on the chip is a gimmick, you can use software virtualization that will work just fine.

Newegg.com is a good place to start looking at CPUs. Depending on your price range, (and power requirements) I'd suggest looking at an i5 or a Phenom II X4. Hard to say though, when you didn't tell us what those requirements are.

The fact that some products require hardware virt assistance to work on some scenarios (silly example: virtualbox to run Red Hat Linux 7), make's it desirable .... of course if you need to run that software.

Re:Help (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405896)

Try Maximum PC's Best of the Best list. [maximumpc.com] Sometimes it's a little out of date, but it's my first stop when I'm overhauling my gaming PC.

Re:Help (3, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405908)

Any chip with Extreme in the name should do.

I know it came from the marketing department but calling it "Extreme Edition" is just obnoxious, especially knowing they will come out with something more "extreme" in 6 months.

Re:Help (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406038)

I have a long standing dislike of Tom's hardware (www.tomshardware.com) dating back over a decade (I can't even remember why anymore), but I must admit that they update their "to-buy at a given price point" list fairly regularly. If memory serves, price per watt used and processing power per watt is also on their comparison list.

I think all modern CPUs except the very cheapest ones (like, sub-$50) support hardware virtualization.

Re:Help (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406212)

I think all modern CPUs except the very cheapest ones (like, sub-$50) support hardware virtualization.

Not really. Intel likes to have a shitload of variations of the same CPU to please different customers. Sometimes a single digit in the model number means that particular processor doesn't have virtualization or whatnot.

I think it's the pressure from computer makers like Dell. I'm guessing the home Dell models don't support HW virt. I mean, if you're doing virtualization, you probably aren't a home user. And they have a business line for customers like you! It's the same crap as home models but with a different case and a non-capped CPU. Stupid, yes, but people keep buying from Dell, so...

Re:Help (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406402)

I wouldn't say virtualization is a the top of a home user's requirements but anyone who is remotely computer savvy would appreciate it as an option. IMO it is essential if you want to run emulators like VirtualBox for example.

My home PC does include it fortunately.

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406764)

I am extremely computer savvy and have no need for virtualization.
Also I have never heard of paravirtualization (23 score on scravvle perhaps?)
I have however heard of dual booting and even tri-booting.
Booting both XP and W7 and having a linix live CD to "try"
Man, You cant process me with your lacklustre brain.

Re:Help (0)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407290)

A consumer need for virtualization generally indicates an incorrect choice of OS. If you find yourself using OSX or Linux, and having to use a VM to run Windows software, then the better options would be to either run Windows, or find an alternative program on your OS of choice.

A commercial need for virtualization generally indicates system operators taking the convoluted way out of a problem, rather than properly designing a system. If you want to run multiple tasks on a single system, then just run multiple tasks on a single system. You never needed virtual machines unnecessarily complicating things before. If you want isolation so you can move the tasks around easily, use chroot. If you want security between the tasks, use one of the more advanced tools like containers or jails or vservers. If you want want to use rapidly allocatable 'coulds', then just write some simple tools to mount the relevant images, and chroot into it as needed. If you think you need live migration of long running tasks, maybe you really just need to buy some dedicated hardware.

The only reason someone should be running virtual machines would either be for cross platform development and testing, support of old no longer available hardware, or for use on hardware such as the Z-Machines, which have some sort of inherent architectural improvement, such as pervasive redundancy, that are not otherwise available on the architecture of choice.

Re:Help (1, Troll)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407544)

A consumer need for virtualization generally indicates an incorrect choice of OS. If you find yourself using OSX or Linux, and having to use a VM to run Windows software, then the better options would be to either run Windows, or find an alternative program on your OS of choice

No. If I want to have a Mac and my company forces me to use a Windows app, I won't be dual-booting just to run the company's app.

A commercial need for virtualization generally indicates system operators taking the convoluted way out of a problem, rather than properly designing a system.

Wow.

If you want want to use rapidly allocatable 'coulds', then just write some simple tools to mount the relevant images, and chroot into it as needed.

Isn't that a convoluted way out of a problem? Why write (and test) things when you can virtualize and run your VMs within minutes.

If you think you need live migration of long running tasks, maybe you really just need to buy some dedicated hardware.

Gee! MAYBE I'm virtualizing to be ABLE to live migrate when I get new hardware?

The only reason someone should be running virtual machines would either be for cross platform development and testing, support of old no longer available hardware, or for use on hardware such as the Z-Machines, which have some sort of inherent architectural improvement, such as pervasive redundancy, that are not otherwise available on the architecture of choice.

Which shows why you just wrote a shitload of bullshit.

Go TRY virtualization and then come back. It's clear that your assumptions are based on what you read around the Internet and some experience with VMware/VirtualBox. And one more tip: change your attitude. Stop writing like an elitist douchebag, you certainly sound like one. I could have answered your post just saying "then why does virtualization exist in the first place?". There is a need, there are solutions, and yours are fine for many cases, but not for others.

Re:Help (4, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406500)

I'm a home user. I use virtualization (or I did. windows 7 is too good to bother with other OSes except for fun anymore).

so, I just went and checked desktop cpus. Every i7 (and extreme) cpu supports VT-x, every i5 does, every i3 does. That's all current non-budget cpus. I checked out the available celeron models, and only the very cheapest (As I said earler, sub $50) lacks VT-x. I went back further, and every core 2 extreme does, almost all the core 2 quads (Except the q8200 and q8300) do. I wasn't able to find a core 2 duo on newegg that didn't have VT-x, and at that point I quit looking. Basically, long story short, you'd have to go out of your way to buy an intel cpu that doesn't have hardware virtualization now.

Re:Help (5, Funny)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407336)

windows 7 is too good to bother with other OSes

True. All other OSs should be retired immediately. Microsoft has finally perfected the OS and there is simply no valid or rational reason to even have more than that... OS and Windows 7 should now be synonymous. I think after SP3 we won't even need applications or the internet any more... its that good. And I know what I'm talking about because I've been using Windows exclusively since 98, and this, my friends, is it. So go on, put it on, Windows 7 is the last operating system you'll ever use, if you have any clue whatsoever.

Re:Help (0)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407776)

Your hyperbole is unnecessary. Do I truly have to put the tag "in my opinion" or "for my own use" the the line for it to be self-explanatory?

Re:Help (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406634)

I used to find Toms a valuable resource but their site is so advertising laden now i wont go back. Was looking up a video card yesterday and EVERY TIME i changed pages i got a full-page interstitial ad. Not to mention all the keyword hover over BS and side bars full of ads too. I get it that websites cost money to run but that site is literally drowning in ads.

Re:Help (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406740)

Adblock removes the majority of those for me, but the "click here to continue to tom's hardware" pages still come up. they're just blank. I hate those things since half the time they forget what page you were on/going to anyway.

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407448)

Ad Muncher removes all interstitial type ads.

it's great. ;p

http://www.admuncher.com/

Re:Help (2)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406708)

dislike of Tom's hardware ... dating back over a decade (I can't even remember why anymore)

Probably because there were roumors that they developed a payed bias syndrome.

CC.

Re:Help (1)

Mystiq (101361) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406710)

I also have a long-standing dislike and I I do remember why. Most of it stems from the fact that there is more ad than content and Tom himself was a bit of an ass back in the day.

Re:Help (1)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407428)

My personal long standing dislike of them is based on the Nvidia scandal where they were skewing test results, which dates back about 10 years.

That said, they seem to be on the up and up since then, though appearances can be deceiving.

Re:Help (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406298)

For features on specific intel processors generally googling the model number will brink up a link to a page on ark.intel.com (never had much luck finding these pages with search tools on intel's site) within the first few results. For performance comparisons I look at a variety of review sites, anandtech bench is especially good when you want a quick comparision between two CPUs. Not sure about features on AMD processors but I bet it's on AMDs site somewhere

What is your budget for CPU/MB? If it's very low you are probablly better off with AMD, if it's $300 or more you are probablly better off with intel.
Do you intend to replace this CPU while keeping the motherboard you bought with it? If so then AM3 and LGA1366 are reaching the end of their life while LGA1155 is at the start of it's life.
Do you need virtualisation with support for dedicating hardware to particular VMs (intel call this VT-D,AMD call it AMD-Vi) or just ordinary hardware assisted virtualisation (intel call this VT-x, AMD call it AMD-V)
Do you want to overclock?
Can you live with a mainstream platform (less ram channels and less PCIe) and are you prepared to wait for the fixed P67/H67 boards? If so then LGA1155 platform gives far better bang per buck than LGA1366.

One annoyance to be aware of with LGA1155 is that you can't really overclock by base clock anymore and for some reason you can get either unlocked multiplier or VT-d but not both. Also only P67 allows multiplier based overclocking, H67 doesn't for some reason

Extreme edition processors rarely make sense financially (there are exceptions such as the 980x prior to the release of sandy bridge and the recent price drop on the 970).

Re:Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407060)

This may be far too non web based for you but try going out to PC World (or some equivalent) and have a go on different machines.. when you find one that works as quick as you want, for what you want to do, then buy the same CPU as that model!

If you read up on andy hardware, you get bombarded with bullshit. I was tempted with a extreme quad core and have NO need for it at all. The dual core @ 3Ghz works fine and was less than half the price.

As far as the icores, I don't need one. If I want a faster PC, I'll invest in a quad core.

Worthless review (3, Informative)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405720)

No mention of the i7 2600K that is 1/3d price for pretty much the same performance minus a few very thread oriented tests.

Re:Worthless review (2)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405842)

No mention of the i7 2600K that is 1/3d price for pretty much the same performance minus a few very thread oriented tests.

It does seem to get pretty hot if it lives up to its name though.

Re:Worthless review (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406630)

Meh, they compared it to the 980X and other well known i7 chips though. There was also shockingly no mention of malfunctioning SATA ports either. It's an article about an extreme chip, so performance/$ is pointless, it's obviously not meant for that.

Re:Worthless review (1)

ixidor (996844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406712)

one minor point. your sandy bridge is a quad, this article is about a hexa-core. that alone is a significant difference.

Re:Worthless review (1)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406770)

Yeah, I really had to question Intel's logic in releasing this thing *after* the sandy bridge chips.

I'm a 2600K owner, upgraded from the 1st gen i7 860 and the 2600K is a colossal increase in speed... and most of my cycles are spent on x264 encodes (something that scales nicely over multiple cores, although I generally limit my encodes to using only two or four threads), something the 6-core chips are even better at... but only very marginally.

In most single and dual-threaded workloads, the 2500 and 2600 i7 chips beat out the 990X by a medium to large margin; the 990X pulls ahead slightly for benches that are able to utilise all six cores/12 threads efficiently, but that's about it. The sandy bridge chips also suck much less power both under load and at idle.

I picked my 2600K up for £246 at launch (costs about the same now), plus a £130 motherboard. The 990X is currently ~£800, plus another £100 for the motherboard say. So for the cost of one of these 6-core chips I could buy two 2600K systems and still have money left over for an extra 8GB of DDR3.

Conclusion: late to the party, brought out of date beer. IMHO solely for people with more money than sense :)

2500K is an even better bargain. (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407456)

For $300, at Microcenter, I picked up both a 2500K i5 (quad core) and a good ASUS motherboard. Then I used the windows based overclocking software for easy 4.4GHz overclocks on demand. Most of the time the computer idles at 2.somethng GHz at reduced voltage to save on electricity.

Techreport.com The new flagship CPU reviews itself (2)

IYagami (136831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405726)

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486 [techreport.com]

Very good (and funny) review:

"Well, I told you I was the finest PC processor on the planet, and now I've backed it up through 16 pages and some ridiculous number of benchmarks. I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but I am probably the zenith of human technological achievement to date. Can't really think of anything that compares, off the top of my head.

True, I'm not cheap compared to the glorious Miss Sandy B. and her overmatched competition at a third of my price or less. In the grand scheme of things, though, pretty much all desktop computer hardware is affordable. The question is: do you value your time? I'm gonna save you five minutes every time you encode a video versus some cut-rate dual core, and eventually that's gonna add up to hours of time saved over my lifetime. Even an eco-weenie on a government grant pulls in a pretty good hourly wage. In the right context, my price tag shouldn't be too hard to justify. I've given you numbers that will let you justify it in terms of power savings, too, if you're into that kind of thing."

Re:Techreport.com The new flagship CPU reviews its (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406138)

The first page of the review makes this TIGER BLOOD seem entirely HIPSTER

captcha: worthy

LEAVE CHARLIE ALONE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405738)

Let him speak! He is a glaring example if "This Is Your Brain on Drugs". Tell your kids to watch.

Re:LEAVE CHARLIE ALONE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406400)

Personally, I don't understand why the video has gotten as much attention as it has. I also don't understand why people feel the need to keep talking about it.

I sort of hate people that buy these... (2)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405762)

Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405828)

Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?

Video conversion, CAD, data processing, compiling very complex programs, software 3d rendering. This is slashdot, I'm sure you can think of your own use cases.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Matt.Battey (1741550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405952)

Rough, sorta hating people for having money... :)

I suspect it's kinda like Intel's version of the I Am Rich [wikipedia.org] web app.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406460)

Video conversion? I can already do this very well without a terribly overpriced CPU.

Very few professionals need this level of performance and it's wasted on most of us, even those of us that are power users.

The cost of marginal performance is just too high. Although this is how it has always been. So it's nothing new.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406716)

Isn't this kind of thing pushed to gfx cards now anyway?

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406804)

Translation: I can't think of anything to do with this hardware therefore it's useless to everyone.

This is Slashdot; we have LANs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406552)

I'll admit there are uses, but they're niche. Some of the examples you just gave are places where this chip probably is not the best tool for the job. If it costs $800 more than a processor that is nearly as fast, you can just buy another computer and distribute your job over the network, and end up getting more performance for less money.

I'm not even saying this as an AMD fanboy; it's not just Phenom II; two Core i5s also usually beat a Core i7 EE.

You might even be able to fit 3 or 4(?) computers into the Core i7 EE price.

So to find the magical scenario where Core i7 EE makes sense, you pretty much need a particularly crippled application. It needs to be parallelizable so that it can use the i7s multiple cores and hyperthreading, but it has to be broken enough that it can't spread over a network. Or it needs to not be parallelizable, where you're just taking advantage of the Core i7s admitted awesome scalar performance, but letting most of the chip be idle while you're doing that, so even if it does the job well, you can't help but feel ripped off. Either way, it's a very unusual situation.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405902)

I want one of these for my Kindle!

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405914)

Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?

Possibly not for the home user.

But, I know I'm involved in a project where we're looking at having dual 8-core CPUs in each of four machines so we can get the scaling we want.

For most home users, they've not really been at a point of having their CPU saturated in quite a while ... web surfing and Facebook are long since past the point of really needing more CPU speed.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405942)

I do lots of virtualization and run multiple VMs simultaneously for distributed testing which is almost always CPU bound. More cores and higher speeds are always a bonus in this environment.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405948)

Where is the value proposition?

I work on high-performance scientific software, and bill at about $200/hour.

If this saves me 3 hours of software tuning for a given customer, it's already a win.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406058)

But for that, wouldn't you be using a dual socket workstation?

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406202)

But for that, wouldn't you be using a dual socket workstation?

So, have a dual socket of this thing with 6 cores/socket. What's the issue?

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406302)

The dual socket boards do not take the i7 CPUs. They take the workstation class Xeons like the x5677

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406392)

Ah, OK. Fair enough.

I've long since lost track of sockets/CPU combinations. They change every week or so. :-P

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406448)

But for that, wouldn't you be using a dual socket workstation?

In general, the more cores, or higher clocks, that can be brought to bear on my problems, the better.

My main point was that a six-core, high-clocked processor is better for my apps than a similar processor with fewer cores and/or a lower clock rate.

Although I should add one caveat. The AVX instructions supported by Intel's Sandy Bridge processor are likely to be a big deal for many scientific apps, and possibly for some games as well. So that's one thing not going for this pre-Sandy Bridge processor.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407344)

Not necessarily. While this has 6 cores and 12 threads, which is great, it also has some of the fastest single threaded performance money can buy. Even if he went with a 4-way Xeon 7500, he might have more cores/threads but not as fast single threaded performance which depending on his workload might be important.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406064)

Only if you have zero costs except for the CPU. I take it your $200 per hour also pays rent / mortgage, utility bills, social life etc?
 
With such a glaring oversight in your maths as that, I don't think I'd buy your software.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406294)

Only if you have zero costs except for the CPU. I take it your $200 per hour also pays rent / mortgage, utility bills, social life etc? With such a glaring oversight in your maths as that, I don't think I'd buy your software.

Uhm.. being able to bill 3 extra hours at $200 is worth $600 if it doesn't lead to an increase in these costs. Marginal cost [wikipedia.org] /revenue. [wikipedia.org]

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406642)

i'm interested in (getting into) your line of work. (Scientific/number crunching software.) I'd be grateful if we could chat a little about what you're up to and what it's like. Perhaps you could drop me a line? beng@few.vu.nl.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405956)

But they can execute 85% more HLT instructions than you while they view facebook. I've always been a value proponent when selecting computer hardware. I've got a $99 CPU that does everything I need.

We've really hit the point where even the lowest end current generation CPU can run multiple desktop apps and are almost never limited by the CPU.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

erikdalen (99500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35405964)

Why wouldn't faster processor speed make a difference in your gameplay? It certainly would for mine (maybe not $700-800 worth of difference though).

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406140)

Make a difference sure, make a visible difference in any currently released game when going against any currently released $300 budget CPUs not likely. Early adopters of CPUs in the home market are generally just suckers, by the time anything available to home users to take advantage of the speed is out, the CPU or an equivelent will be 1/4th the price.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406726)

You do realize us "suckers" are the ones making the comparisons and recommendations for you cheapskates, right ?

Just because you don't get your my money's worth out of a $10k PC doesn't mean I can't. And I do, thankyouverymuch.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406168)

because the processor normally isn't the bottleneck in gaming. The processor typically has to be more than a couple years old before a game will need a faster processor to keep up. Even then, a new low end cpu will normally remove any processor bottleneck your facing with games.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406172)

depends on the game. if you're playing at a high res (say, 1080p or higher. I play at 1920x1200) with anti-aliasing turned on, chances are you're video-card limited not cpu limited. Most video games don't really take advantage of more than 2 cores. sure the other two (or 4) may be running a thread here or there, but the majority of the processing is being done on core 0, with perhaps a significant amount on core 1, but not a whole heck of a lot going on beyond that.

Sure you could make the argument "I have other programs running as well, and by moving them to the extra cores, I can free up processor cycles on those cores that the game is actually using", which is true... but you could also just shut those programs off and get the same performance from less cores.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35405980)

Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?

Kinda like a Rolex will never ever make a real difference in precision when you look at the time. Still, the company is quite healthy last time I checked.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407408)

Wearing a $60,000 Rolex might get you laid. Having the most expensive CPU available definitely will not.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

adeft (1805910) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406014)

Obviously it goes towards being able to say "I have the best/most" Some people will even admit this is important to them.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406082)

I do audio recording. This processor, especially in a heavily threaded operation like running multiple plugins on multiple tracks of audio is absolutely aamzing. I'm already looking into upgrading my stuidio computer to use one of these.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406676)

Given the related cost of hardware and software needed to build a working system, you're better off buying something like the Axe-FX.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

ixidor (996844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406746)

related - a year ago i bout an i7 to replace a phenom II. my dvd rip times just in handbrake for the same setting went down maybe 20-30 min. that was worth it at the time, as i was on the 3 disk plan.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406936)

The value proposition is that you for most normal purposes can only use one computer at the time. You can get five $20,000 cars or one $100,000 Ferrari, but if you're only going to drive one I'd pick the Ferrari even though it's terrible "value" for getting from A to B. Even a fully loaded SLI rig can be had for a few thousand dollars, yes it's a lot but at the same time not crazy amounts of money.

I know quite a few people that spend more on their hobby, to put it that way. Like a friend of mine that's extremely into snowboarding, I'm sure he spends something like $10-20.000/year on that including trips to the Alps which is his idea of vacation. Another friend of mine got hooked on a Porsche, cost something like $80k I think. They do have well paying jobs but they're not millionaires, they just decided this is what they'd like to do with their disposable income. At that even $3k for a fully pimped out rig isn't that much.

Of course it's not for everybody, but say the top 5% households that earn >166k/year shouldn't have any problem blowing 7-800$ on a processor. And that still works out to some 15 million people to sell to...

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407426)

Once again, the Ferrari will go a lot father towards getting you laid than the CPU will...

Of course, if you've got a big enough penis, you wont feel the need for either of them.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407156)

I must misunderstand your post because it seems like you don't see the point of faster, more powerful CPUs. If that's the case, I take it you've never had to run high-performance servers, have you? I work for a company that builds network test equipment, and any power gain in the CPU market is good for us. It means we can do more throughput, new TCP connection per second rate, more encryption/decryption (SSL and especially IPSec testing) and whatnot.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407170)

The value proposition is that this is the fastest processor for the market segment it's geared for. Just this weekend I was noticing that I couldn't run Doom 3 at 2650x1600 on my 30" monitor with all the settings turned up like I'd like. My last processor which I spent $1000 on, the Intel 980X and my Nvidia geforce 450 GTX just don't quite cut it. I should probably go with a dual or tri SLI setup but I don't want the extra noise.

Before Quakecon this year, I'll probably upgrade my SSD to a OCZ Vertex 3, my CPU to a i7-990X and my video card to a Nvidia Geforce 580GTX. Not because any of those 3 products has the best cost/performance value but because they're the fastest in their categories and help make my computer compile code and run games as fast as it can. The majority of the time I use the computer I don't need all the resources it has available but in the times I do I'm grateful it can perform like I need it to or like my doom3 experience this weekend I start thinking about what I can upgrade.

I'm a computer geek with a large disposable income. I don't care about expensive cars or clothes or a huge house but I do care about computers so that's what I spend some of my extra money on. Unless you are some kind of zen-like minimalist I'm sure there are things in your buying bracket that you spend extra money on just because you want to not because it offers the best price/performance ratio.

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407298)

Let me guess, you have 640k of memory too?

Re:I sort of hate people that buy these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407324)

Call me a hater - but the idea of spending $7-800 on a CPU that will never ever make a difference in your gameplay, video editing, internet surfing, facebooking, etc... Where is the value proposition?

Obviously you haven't been involved in any e-Peen contests lately. This CPU would win for sure!

speed bump != speed boost ? wtf : oic (1)

Thunder Rabbit (923334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406004)

It took me a while to realize a speed bump was a good thing for a CPU...

Re:speed bump != speed boost ? wtf : oic (1)

mmj638 (905944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406220)

I concur.

Where I come from, a speed bump is something designed to slow you down.

Re:speed bump != speed boost ? wtf : oic (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406748)

And where I come from, a "bump" makes you go faster.

Er, yes that was a drug reference. Stay in school, kids! :)

Re:speed bump != speed boost ? wtf : oic (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407452)

Where I come from, a "speed bump" is the optimal use for a lawyer.

Wow. (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406046)

Could he have filled the first page with more pointless meta-referencing knob-slobbery?

Survey SAYS!

Don't get me wrong. The rest of the article is useful. It's just personal irritation with that sort of writing style.

Tom's Hardware review (3, Informative)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406084)

Re:Tom's Hardware review (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406346)

I like to karma whore, too. Maybe we could meet up, and, like, karma whore, together?

magic marker? (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406090)

I've yet to build a rig or deal with the wondrous thermal goo, but isn't it a *terrible* idea to put magic marker on one of these chips? Looking at a Sharpie MSDS, the ink boils at 207F. O_o;

While marking 990x on his chip may look cute for a picture, I'm picturing in a my mind a comedic gas build up and separation from the heat sink the first time he loads it.

Re:magic marker? (3, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406260)

if your cpu is running at 207'F, you have other things to worry about before magic marker becomes a concern. Last I checked, thermal shutdown for intel cpus was between 65'c (149'F) and 75'c (167'F) depending on model.

Re:magic marker? (1)

SirMasterboy (872152) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407374)

Thats the max heatspreader temp.

The individual core temps for i7 CPUs are rated at Tjunc max of 100c or 212f before any thermal throttling takes effect.

212f sounds like a lot, but modern CPUs and GPUs can take the heat. GPUs often don't throttle until 115c (239f) or so. If it couldn't take that heat, they would set the Tjunc max lower. You can't kill a modern CPU with heat anymore. If it gets too hot, it throttles, if it gets a bit hotter, it shuts down completely. The only way you can kill a CPU these days is with too much voltage.

With more voltage, you are essentially moving the transistors faster and faster and eventually they just die.

madman 'taken out' by strong language? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35406128)

he's a 'soldier', he has his 'orders'. even if he gave them to himself, it'll take a great hero/talknician/social worker to vocalize this guy down. fortunately, soon.....???

Damn, it's the dog's bollox (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406248)

That processor looks fantastic. Al I need to do now is work out how many of my kids I have to sell to buy a machine worthy of it.

I'm not a total bastard. I had considered selling a kidney instead, but I'm more attached to them than to my offspring.

Tiger Blood? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406558)

Are we being set up here? I never heard of Tiger Blood before, and the Wikipedia article was created three days ago. Sounds like someone's trying to play games here...

Re:Tiger Blood? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406994)

You can be thankful there isn't someone in your household who keeps up with Charlie Sheen news then.

Re:Tiger Blood? (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407704)

Charlie who?

Re:Tiger Blood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35407554)

Apparently, some B-list celebrity is having a rather hilarious complete mental breakdown, which is spawning memes at a rate hithertofore unseen. "Tiger blood", "Winning!", and a few others, all within a few days. It will probably subside soon, as he'll either run out of or overdose on whatever substance is fueling this disaster.

but of course it'll cost you as well. (1)

ELCouz (1338259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406878)

/me gave a chopsaw to Intel.... here have my arm and my leg!

What is best in life? (1)

Macgyveric (879573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35406910)

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!

1366 socket is a dead end, wait for socket 2011 (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407124)

If you want to buy the fastest futureproof PC and you don't own one yet, hold on!

Later this year Intel will introduce a new 2011 pins socket and 6-8 cores Sandy Bridge CPUs for it. These beasts will be much faster, much more power efficient and they will come with native DDR3-1600MHz RAM support.

Even now under many workloads almost four times cheaper 4 cores Sandy Bridge 2600(K) CPU beats six cores Intel Extreme i7 990X, because SB has much improved IPC (instruction per clock) ratio.

Intel Core i7 990X CPU is largely justified only for the current socket 1366 owners who encode/transcode video, render CGI or compile huge software projects.

Tested against an older phenom II x 4 965 ? (2)

m.dillon (147925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35407810)

Well, the i7-990x is certainly a fast processor but I don't see the point comparing it against a 965 without turbo-boost. They are effectively comparing a 3.8 GHz i7 (when it isn't running all its cpus.. that's how turbo boost works for both vendors) against a 3.4 GHz phenom II. Well Duh! The phenom ii x6 1100T black is 1/4 the price and runs 3.7 GHz out of the box in turbo boost mode, and it can be trivially and reliably overclocked to 3.8 GHz on all 6 cpus with turbo boost turned off (and to 4.0 GHz with moderately good cooling).

Intel still has faster cpus clock for clock, but not by a whole lot and the price/performance ratio for the i7 is horrible. Expensive cpu, expensive ram... come on.

-Matt

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...