3.2GHz Core i7-960 appears in Intel price list

AMD isn’t the only one to have updated its price list recently. Intel made a stealth update on Sunday, adding one new processor and cutting the price of its Pentium E6300 from $81 to $74. That’s it, as far as we can tell.

The new processor is none other than the Core i7-960, whose arrival was foretold early last month. Just as the rumor mill said, this CPU has the same $562 list price and basic specifications as the Core i7-950, except it has a 3.2GHz base clock speed, and Turbo Boost can carry its cores up to 3.46GHz. (The 950 runs at 3.06GHz with a top Turbo Boost speed of 3.33GHz.) Both chips otherwise have the same 8MB of L3 cache, 4.8GT/s QuickPath speed, 130W thermal envelope, and LGA1366 package.

The arrival of the Core i7-960 may give enthusiasts more of an incentive to go with Intel’s upscale LGA1366 platform instead of LGA1156. As we saw in our Lynnfield review, the Core i7-950 performs very closely to the new, similarly priced Core i7-870, which fits into cheaper LGA1156 motherboards.

Comments closed
    • OneArmedScissor
    • 13 years ago

    Except the people who want them REALLY want them, and they’re the high binned chips that there aren’t as many of to go around.

    I guess that part is kind of important lol. My bad.

    • toyota
    • 13 years ago

    isnt that the opposite of supply and demand? if something is not in demand it will be priced lower not higher.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 13 years ago

    Supply and demand. There’s hardly any market for them…so they cost a squillion dollars. Go figure. Intel can justify bothering to box them up and let them sit around until someone bites since they’re such a huge corporation. AMD needs to sell every chip they make ASAP.

    It’s the same deal with high binned server CPUs for Intel and AMD, so it’s not terribly surprising, considering this is really a rebadged Xeon.

    • oldDummy
    • 13 years ago

    Ok, I ordered one. Buyer’s remorse?
    Of course, but I already had the x58 MB with a 920.
    Running the 920 at 3.4G was a breeze but you lost all power saving features. I reverted to running the 920 at stock speed with the voltage at .98V/ 1.0V. It ran great at 2.67G.
    This, I’m sure, will run great at 3.2G, which I missed.
    So, since my wife and I won’t go hungry or miss any vacations I don’t feel really bad about it. Just a little annoyed that I’m being worked by a major corp. for about $.02 of silicon.

    • stmok
    • 13 years ago

    Trolls aren’t meant to be understood. They’re meant to be ignored.

    • Meadows
    • 13 years ago

    But the ban is so late every time.

    Also, I don’t get what he was trying to say. The link was in discord with his statement.

    • internetsandman
    • 13 years ago

    Honestly…what is the point of this? Releasing the same processor with different clockspeeds and names, and then re-releasing the same processor in a new, slightly faster line-up, and then re-re-releasing it, with the same speed as one of the originals, except no extreme edition. Also, why can they justify almost doubling the price for the meagre speed bump between processors?

    If ever I need to make a system on a budget, I wouldn’t even glance at intel processors, knowing I could get something near-equivilant from AMD for at least a hundred bucks less. Intel’s pricing is truly annoying

    • Vaughn
    • 13 years ago

    Considering I just picked up a 920 D0 for $314 Cdn and a Asus P6T Deluxe V2 for around $309 I don’t really consider that paying for server parts on my consumer desktop.

    A similar Lynnfield build was not much cheaper. And AMD’s offerings are cheaper but offer lower performance.

    I agree with the rest of your post though.

    • ihira
    • 13 years ago

    aka i7 965 non-extreme edition.

    I wonder if the 950 will eventually replace the 920 for $284 segment of i7 line-up.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 13 years ago

    …and look at that plane go!

    • Kurkotain
    • 13 years ago

    that post made my day…

    • danny e.
    • 13 years ago

    you cant have faster libraries without faster librarians and we all know that government employees are slow.

    • Clint Torres
    • 13 years ago

    Yeah, in 3D graphics you can never have enough processing power.

    A 4-core Core i7 920 @ 3.33Ghz is as fast at rendering as an 8-core (Dual Proc) Xeon box @ 3.0GHz (core 2 tech).

    Makes me wonder how fast an 8-Core Nahalem workstation would be.

    • Zorb
    • 13 years ago

    S775 will still meet the demands of almost any business workstation to this day and what’s the problem with that….

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 13 years ago

    You use Xeons in a PC? :p

    • Clint Torres
    • 13 years ago

    At least Intel didn’t treat us PC users like bitches again by offering this exclusively in a Mac first (a la high-end Xeons).

    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    Same troll, different username. Don’t feed; await the ban.

    • Arxor
    • 13 years ago

    Keepin’ the meme alive, or epic troll resurrection?

    • Sargent Duck
    • 13 years ago

    What’s there to review anyways?

    “I bought this processor and it’s fast. real fast…ummm…and Intel has brought back hyperthreading…did I mention it’s fast?”

    • Convert
    • 13 years ago

    Reviews =! Purchases.

    (or however that goes)

    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    You also need faster transistor libraries, which are available but at the price of more leakage. So that hypothetical 45nm netburst (which would require such libraries) would probably be burning a couple of hundred watts even at idle.

    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    The 1366 socket really isn’t “at the consumer level” — it’s the 1P/2P server socket. It just so happened that Intel released the 1P CPU first and convinced “enthusiasts” to pay (exorbitantly) for the privilege of field-testing it. Which you can still do, if you want to pay for server parts for your “consumer” desktop.

    The 1156 socket is the consumer socket, but even it sits above the mainstream until Clarkdale debuts; until then, 775 remains the mainstream.

    If you want to complain about the socket situation at the consumer level, how about the existence of essentially /[

    • oMa
    • 13 years ago

    3Ghz+ is inefficient because of the memory latency. memory latency has been pretty stable since the ddr400 cl2 days. We need better latency or a gigantic cache to scale well over 3 Ghz.

    • Kurotetsu
    • 13 years ago

    l[

    • swaaye
    • 13 years ago

    Of course Netburst was supposed to go much higher than that in clock rate. That was the philosophy for the design. Get it to 6-7 GHz or so and beat everyone else via clock speed. Physics said no, however.

    • sledgehammer
    • 13 years ago

    amount of intel core i7 870 bought from newegg since launch= 0

    that’s exactly 0.0

    §[<http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=lynnfield&x=0&y=0<]§ what's wrong with intel?

    • swaaye
    • 13 years ago

    It’s new for Intel maybe, but AMD used to have Socket A, 754 and 940/939 as options all at the same time.

    The reason is pretty clear in today’s case too, just as it was back then. The memory controller in the CPU requires different sockets if you want to scale channels (cost). 775 is now occupying the same position as Socket A was back in the day, as the obsolete-but-affordable choice.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 13 years ago

    I still don’t understand intels market segmentation, it is really frustrating to see for no good reason two different sockets @ the consumer level. All while 775 is still alive and kicking.

    • FuturePastNow
    • 13 years ago

    A Netburst at 45nm would probably be in the mid-4GHz range or higher, stock. Not that that means anything with such an inefficient architecture.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 13 years ago

    I wouldn’t mind the TDP. How often are you going to completely load the CPU?

    Much more important is the fact that the idle power on the X58 platform as a whole is worse than anything else current. The extra bandwidth from the QPI links isn’t free…or really useful on a desktop.

    I also have to wonder what the deal is with newer Bloomfields still having inferior turbo boosts, but most people probably overclock them, anyways.

    • thermistor
    • 13 years ago

    Kinda weird seeing clock speeds back up in the mid-3 Ghz range like Netburst. Of course without all the downsides of Netburst.

    • Game_boy
    • 13 years ago

    And motherboard prices are higher for 9xx too.

    • ClickClick5
    • 13 years ago

    Timed with AMD’s price drops I see…

    Marketing…psh.

    • moshpit
    • 13 years ago

    Having a 920 and a 860 right next to each other, I can tell you that you cannot tell the difference between the 2 rigs without extremely detailed benchmarking, and even then it’s more often a wash with the results falling well within the margin of error.

    • danny e.
    • 13 years ago

    the 870 & 860 are both 95W while the 950, ect are 130W.
    That right there would drive me away from the 9xx

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!