Report: Six-core Core i7-970 coming soon

The 1000-dollar Core i7-980X Extreme may not be Intel’s only six-core processor for the foreseeable future. Fudzilla reports that a more affordable derivative, dubbed the Core i7-970, “could ship within the next couple of weeks.” The site talks of early listings for the chip, and sure enough, European price search engine Geizhals lists one Core i7-970 listed at Dutch e-tailer Cool-Prices.nl.

The e-tailer quotes a 3.2GHz clock speed and 12MB of cache, suggesting the processor has the same Gulftown silicon as the Core i7-980X. (Bloomfield-based Core i7-900 chips with four cores only have 8MB of L3 cache.) 3.2GHz doesn’t seem like much of a step down from the i7-980X’s 3.33GHz base clock speed, which is probably good news for bargain hunters.

Those folks might have to wait for prices to drop before placing their orders, though. Cool-prices.nl pegs the chip at €840, and Fudzilla quotes a potential suggested retail price of €799. Considering the same e-tailer lists the i7-980X for €936,30, and Newegg carries that CPU for $1,089.99, it seems like the i7-970 might cost at least $800 stateside.

Charging that much for a lower-priced derivative of a new Extreme Edition processor wouldn’t be a first for Intel. When it launched in January 2007, the quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 carried an $851 price tag for bulk orders, yet it was still the cheapest quad-core processor on the market.

Comments closed
    • ihira
    • 9 years ago

    /[<>...which is probably good news for bargain hunters.<]/ then /[<>it seems like the i7-970 might cost at least $800 stateside.<]/ I guess my definition of bargain is quite different from the article writer.

    • Edvin1984
    • 9 years ago

    Right now I have two computers at home and I see no real gain from either one. I have a i7 920 and a AMD 965 125w both are at stock speeds, and I game and use them both with same quality settings, but with the Intel I had to pay a lot more to get the system together. I am sure some professional video editing guru will use this CPU, but for me I would never ever pay more than $250 for a CPU again.

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    And we get more and more niche with more and more cores.

    I think that I’d rather see something like a 4.5 GHz Core i3 or Phenom X2. I just don’t see the utility of a 6 core CPU outside of those ultra parallel apps that are rather rare for commonfolk really. Actually they are non-existent for most people I think.

      • Farting Bob
      • 9 years ago

      Intel has always had super high end $1000 chips. Its also had <$100 chips. With pretty much everything in between.
      Whats to complain about? People who buy $800 CPU’s usually have a need for them and the money to spend, it would be a really stupid move for intel to ignore them, especially since they have a near monopoly on that pricepoint/performance level.

        • swaaye
        • 9 years ago

        Actually I’m fine with them leveraging their market power with crazy consumer pricing. I was whining about more and more cores being lost on almost everyone. 😀

        More clock speed would help everyone, more cores do not. I have no idea if it’s feasible, but I think it would be much more interesting to leverage 32nm for a tiny dual core that clocks up a bunch more.

        I feel that these chips are primarily awesome for servers and HPC stuff, but barely useful at all for desktops.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Pining for those netburst days, eh?

            • swaaye
            • 9 years ago

            In the single core days almost every little advancement helped everybody. Now with the more cores approach, we’re increasingly seeing the performance improvements go ever more niche or server-world-only.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            With process advancements come speed increases at reasonable power levels (assuming design teams don’t keep following the multicore path).

            GF32/Intel22 coming.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Physics already pwned the crank-up the MEGAHURTZ crowd.

      That is why parallelism and multi-core chips have taken over. However, I do admit that parallelism has issues of its own.

    • wira020
    • 9 years ago

    Phenom II x6 is already selling in country.. only the 1055t model tho… but i think i’d be smarter too wait a while, AMD tend to drop their price fast… and if 1090t only cost a bit more, i’m sure the unlocked multiplier will make it worthwhile…

    I hope TR can do an article about using phenommsrtweaker with the 6 cores.. i hope it will work well with the turbo core…

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    At around $300, the fastest AMD Phenom II X6 should give much better value for money. I’m going AMD, as I’ve almost always have.

      • accord1999
      • 9 years ago

      But then the reason it’s priced at $300 is because it’s only going to perform like a $300 Intel quad-core processor.

        • ronch
        • 9 years ago

        Perhaps. But at $300, will you buy the Core i7 920 or the Phenom II X6 1090T? The 920 will win in single-threaded apps while the X6 should win in multi-threaded apps. Since either one of these chips is overkill for most people on day-to-day common usage anyway, such as Internet browsing or typing documents (most of which are single threaded), you’ll do fine with the X6 but probably get better performance when transcoding videos for your iPod or using Photoshop.. Sounds sweet to me.

        Besides, AMD boards are cheaper, more often than not, which adds to the value proposition.

        And also, let’s wait for benchmarks before we conclude performance numbers.

          • ybf
          • 9 years ago

          The x6 will “win in multithreaded apps” only if having 6 threads at slower clock is more total IPC than 4 threads at higher clock and better instruction efficiency.

          That’s an amazingly thin region of superiority, almost esoteric in its definition and rare in its natural occurrence, while in the rest of the range of applications the 970 will win.

            • grantmeaname
            • 9 years ago

            the 970 isn’t what it’s being compared to. The 970 costs an additional $500. Moreover, the platform costs for PHIIs is much less than the platform costs for Nehalem i7s.

            • ronch
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, but the 970 costs way more. Few people are willing to pay that much for that increase in performance. For most folks, getting a 6-core chip for $300 sounds great, and those are the folks AMD is going after.

            I do lots of video transcoding, and yes, at $300, this 6-core sounds nice.

            • ronch
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, but the 970 costs way more. Few people are willing to pay that much for that increase in performance. For most folks, getting a 6-core chip for $300 sounds great, and those are the folks AMD is going after.

            I do lots of video transcoding, and yes, at $300, this 6-core sounds nice.

          • shank15217
          • 9 years ago

          What bull, it would beat the Core i7 920 in single threaded and multi-threaded app alike.

            • thecoldanddarkone
            • 9 years ago

            Well it’s actually going against the 930 not 920. Since the 930 is actually under 300.

            • ronch
            • 9 years ago

            Well, I know I want one of these, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the X6 1090T will beat the i7 920 in single-threaded apps. That’s taking it a bit too far, isn’t it? (I’m assuming you’re not being sarcastic in your post.)

    • wkstar
    • 9 years ago
      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      In case you didn’t notice, this is an article about an INTEL six-core.

        • Ikeoth
        • 9 years ago

        I think he was thumbing his nose at Intel. I don’t care about 800$ processors as I am not willing to buy any CPU at that price. Where does the $/Pref. ratio come in at ?

    • jdaven
    • 9 years ago

    Has anyone here ever bought an $800+ processor for personal use before?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      If you put all the Apple tax in a Mac on to the CPU, then yes!

      p.s. Apple tax!

        • ImSpartacus
        • 9 years ago

        If you seriously bought a Mac Pro, then…

        Oh wow, I’m just speechless.

        • ronch
        • 9 years ago

        Well, Apple fanboys have to fund Steve’s next liver, right?

      • Vaughn
      • 9 years ago

      ya the price of this would have to hit $500 before I would even look at it

      • Sargent Duck
      • 9 years ago

      After I win the lottery I’ll get back to you : )

        • ew
        • 9 years ago

        No matter how much money you have this CPU is a bad value.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          Unless you are in a situation where time is $$$$$.

            • Jigar
            • 9 years ago

            Than i wouldn’t prefer this chip, there is big brother of this boy…

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            Then you’d probably be better off buying two of something cheaper.

            It’s just Intel trying to yell, “WOW, SIX CORES IN A DESKTOP!” louder than AMD.

            • Kurotetsu
            • 9 years ago

            In which case, you couldn’t be buying a 6-core consumer chip. You’d be buying a complete workstation/server system from some well known vendor (along with lots of support).

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            This chip is still a “workstation” part.

      • ybf
      • 9 years ago

      Sure.

      I paid $1k for a Yorktown quad-core the week they dropped. Loaded it up with high-speed RAM and a RAID for speed. It’s still kicking ass and taking names. Any machine that’s nearly 3 years old and you still think it’s too fast for your needs is worth the extra ducats.

      But then, I can remember paying $4k for new iron in the ’90s, when money was tighter and 300 MIPS was a big deal…

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    I thought the Q6600 had been around longer than that. Price of that thing dropped like a rock.

      • khands
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah, I thought so too, it only became a good buy once it dropped to around <$300

        • flip-mode
        • 9 years ago

        And it was a stellar buy at under $200 in, what… early 2009…? 2 years shaved in excess of 75% of its price. I guess that’s normal.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 9 years ago

          Nah, it’s not so normal.

          Intel wanted to put a quad in people’s hands. They took their cheapest quad-core Kentsfield and refined it until they had a cooler, cheaper product.

          The G0 Q6600 will go down in history as the first consumer quad core processor.

          “Oh man, you got a SLACR?! You suck!”

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            More like Intel did preemptive strike at AMD who at the time was about to release the infamous Phenom I.

            • ybf
            • 9 years ago

            IMO it was unnecessary, and the long tail on Q6600 showed it. It stayed in that $150-200 range for a very long time, because AMD screwed up Barcelona, and that made the Phenom a relative mess.

            Those chips were supposed to put AMD back where it was when in ’03 the 64-bit Athlon was eating Intel’s lunch and dinner. AMD still hasn’t recovered, and now Intel has a whole family of chips that are faster than the fastest AMD chip.

            AMD had to sell its fabs to survive. That’s bad, when you try to do something to make a little money and it costs you your house.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            AMD selling the fabs made sense.

            They were never going to be able to compete with Intel on the manufacturing side, but are almost competitive on the design side. AMD just decided to focus on their core competency.

            In a year or two, the CPU landscape will look very different from what it has been in the last year or two. AMD will be going head-to-head with Intel on CPU performance (while still lacking in capacity and, consequently, market share), while Intel is focusing more on growth areas (SOCs, cellphones etc.).

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            I can’t imagine they really needed to do much refining at only 2.4 GHz. They just needed enough chips with fully functional cache to go around. As 65nm Core 2 manufacturing capacity increased and they had more to spare, they figured they may as well use it and slap two together for the price of one.

            Same deal as AMD making low speed, affordable, 12 core CPUs at 45nm and octal cores that are cheaper than most of the quads were.

    • yogibbear
    • 9 years ago

    Sweeeet. And yes this is worth reading.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Just use space bar like others.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This