Never said it did. I can't see why anyone would ever pay $500 or more for a processor you'll be using at home. I'd say it's a different story if it's a work related business expense.
Me, I will never buy a proc that costs more than $350. I always stay within that budget. I find that the sweet spot. You can get a fast processor and you can usually overclock it to match the $1000 ones.
It's pricey but very quick at pretty much everything. Thanks for the look anyway. Could AT consider an article highlighting the need for software that really shines on this hardware? Who's coding 6 core +HT stuff anyway? Give them a push Anand :)
"If you're doing a lot of 3D rendering, video encoding or other heavily threaded tasks it makes sense. Otherwise, despite the class leading performance, it's not a good value. "
They're not the same chip. 750 is Lynnfield (1156) while 920 is Bloomfield (1366). They do happen to have the same core and uncore clock speeds, but the 750 can turbo boost to higher clockspeeds than the 920 can. So that's most likely the reason the 750 is winning some tests.
Don't see how they can't be in the same sentence. Who had the cheapest dual cores, when they first hit the market? I'll give you 1 hint. It wasn't AMD. Hell, I went with an Intel dual core, simply cause it was $200 dollars cheaper than anything AMD had to offer during the time.
But hey, if all you're looking for is crappy $100 or less processor, then yes. Intel is not meant for you.
I was really hoping this CPU would fall in the $500-$600 range but the price sort of makes sense as there really is no competition at this performance level from AMD so Intel can pretty much charge whatever it wants.
Both of which would suck huge donkey nuts, if you plan on using it at home. Unless you just happen to be rendering complex scenes. Which most aren't. You'll benefit more from the 980X or 970, for quick simple renderings, modeling, etc. Course, I'm going to assume that many ppl who buy these procs just want the best on the market and couldn't care less how it actually performs.
For barely $950, you can get an Asus mobo with 2 CPU slots and 2 8-way magnycours 2.0ghz.
That is...you can get 16 real cores, totalling 32 ghz AND the motherboard.
Do you really think Intel can get even CLOSE to the performance yelded? Anything that uses more then 4 cores will probably use as many as it finds (encoding, crunching etc etc). So, guess what...no freaking way.
Intel is only a better buy if you're some kind of rich gamer...even then, i suppose a regular core I7 overclocked will do better than a 6 core that can't overclock "as good", as the trend seems to be coding is stuck on using at most 4 cores.
Actually yes, even in highly multi-threaded situations the i7-970 will be comparable to 2x6128s. And for the plenty of things that can't use 16 threads effectively, then it won't even be close.
I think that's the point though. It's like Anand said, this is possibly an issue of binning. And before the haters keep on hating, let's consider what the sales numbers for these things are? EE's have never been sales leaders, they exist to show what will trickle down. Intel is so far head in their 32-nm node that they were able to get this thing out ahead of schedule and are probably working very hard to ramp up production at this node so that they can produce chips of this caliber at lower price points. I have the fullest expectation that within six months a nearly equivalent chip (minus AES and such a large L3) will be selling at the $400 price.
What I want are features. I want Sandy Bridge to be a media and IO powerhouse, that can share graphics duties with a discrete GPU for huge power savings in the desktop realm. I want to be able to hear my freaking loud 4890 power all the way down when I'm watching a movie and then ramp up when I get my WoW on. I want 8 cores that will power down when not in use. I want IO integrated so that I don't have to slap a loud tiny fan over a Northbridge. And I want to build the whole system for less than $500 (plus that same 4890! ;) it does all I wanted). What do you think Anand? How far out am I from seeing my dream?
I have been running the i7 920 since late late 2008, I am extremely happy that it still holds up so well and I see no reason to upgrade for at least another couple years.
Totally agree. The only benchmark on here that I care about is the x264 encoding one. But my OC's [email protected] looks to be only a few percent slower than the new 970.
Personally I'd like to see a 1080p benchmark, but thats not a big deal. I do wish that you would add a highly overclocked chip to these benchmarks, like an old 920 @4.0 or something, so that us early adopters would be able to get an idea of how we still hold up to Intel's new hotness.
I don't understand why AT doesn't test games with max setings like with video cards. Doing so would be more helpful in seeing exactly what kind of CPU would actually be beneficial @ the settings most of us play at, or at least strive to play at.
Yeah but these tests only help people using the same GPU and game settings. Testing at GPU limited settings would show what kind of CPU you'd need before performance is affected.
I suppose these tests show which CPU has the most raw power and getting the best peformer would be more "future proof". But it you're looking to upgrade it doesn't show if it'd even be worth it. Both kinds of tests should be included really.
I'm a cuda fan for 1080p video encoding. I'd never pay this price for a useless processor. My GTX 460 beat the shit out this i7 970 ;-) The only issue is that the Cuda x264 encoder in mediacoder allows only one pass for the moment...
What is so ridiculous about the AMD and Intel Quad and Hex core products is they are more powerful than multi-million dollar Cray XMP and YMP computers I have used 20 years ago.
Looking at the Intel roadmap on page one is a little surprising. Are they honestly launching the new architecture in the mainstream and performance mainstream segments first? I was expecting them to launch the high-end chips first, like they did with Nehalem, and then trickle down the pricing ladder.
If so, then great. We all won't have to wait another year for affordable Sandy Bridge systems.
- until Intel provides a better ratio when we talk about price/performance I will not be impressed.........and I will not buy, off-course........... - and I am an owner of Q6600............ - SO, I am sorry Intel, but you do not impress ME, at least.......... - only disappoint ME, to be frankly............ - for the price of a single CPU that is shown-ed today, I can buy a WHOLE PC, when we talk about AMD X6........... - and that so call performance of you new CPU, is only effective in tests, and in to a VERY small amount of applications........... - in every day usage, not even the 920 - that belongs to a very good friend of mine - shows that is up to the price........... - not these new versions of CPU........... - so............what can I say more?
I too have a Q6600 that I bought for $200 using a DG965WH motherboard. It was excellent for its time.
Unless Intel or AMD markets a replacement processor that is 2x as capable than the Q6600 for $200 - $250 then I am not interested in upgrading.
Even the i7 920 or i5 760 does not provides that kind of cost/power normalized performance.
If my Q6600/DG965WH were to drop dead tomorrow, I would purchase a 95W Phenom II X4 955 Black with an ASUS 890G/SB850 chipset (for the ECC memory) because this provides the best value and connectivity for the dollar. I do not have applications that really need six cores. However, I can fully utilize four cores with media encoding and MNPC analysis.
AMD may not be first rate in processor performance, but this highly competent company and its partners offer excellent value parts.
If you're like most people then you're busy pricing the hard drive and memory size you need first. From there you look for an affordable combination of cpu and motherboard. If you really could use a better cpu lets say for your work but the funds aren't available you compromise as best as you can. However, if you're not from Main Street but instead from Wall Street the chances are you buy the best available. It is for this class of customers that Intel offers their Gulftown series. If not for these customers Intel would not have a $1k desktop processor. I'm not saying Intel is involved with the progressive redistribution of wealth to the top 1%, but I feel confident that marketers will be targeting the customers with the most money first and let second tier builders like AMD pick up the rest of us where the less attractive profit margins are found. This is not a moral statement, just a practical one related to what is brought to the market. Don't get me wrong, I could get moral, but this is after all a technical site.
If i get to buy an around $1000 cpu I'd go with the 980x,simply because it's the best and its next lower cpu is only $100 cheaper.When you get to spend around $1000 in a cpu $100 it's no big deal when you can get more advantadges.
The rendering page intrigued me, 25505 for the 970. Just for reference, my i7 860 oc'd to 4GHz gives 19140, enough to outpace a stock 1090T and come close to a 975. Of course, these can be oc'd aswell, but just thought I'd mention since people were commenting on how the lesser CPUs oc'd would compare.
What is especially interesting though is the result for an i7 930 system I found while trawling for Cinebench data, namely 24972 at 4.3GHz - not that much less than the 970 (by comparison, a stock 930 gives about 17200).
As the author says, as long as there's no competition from AMD, Intel can charge what it likes and that part of the market will happily pay. Heck, if money really wasn't an issue, I'd buy them. :D But then again, for rendering, if money really wasn't an issue I'd buy a 256-CPU Altix UV 1000, hehe...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
Back to Article
dragunover - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
This CPU is a joke until it's getting sold for under four hundred dollars....AstroGuardian - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Why just not take i5-750 and overclock the heck out of it and beat the "crab" out of the i7-970?Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Does overclocking net you additional cores now?(Sarcasm aside, you CAN net additional cores on an AMD CPU!)
afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Cause then you can overlock the i7-970 and beat the "crab" out of anything else, minus the 980X.medi01 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Which still won't justify 5 times higher price.afkrotch - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link
Never said it did. I can't see why anyone would ever pay $500 or more for a processor you'll be using at home. I'd say it's a different story if it's a work related business expense.Me, I will never buy a proc that costs more than $350. I always stay within that budget. I find that the sweet spot. You can get a fast processor and you can usually overclock it to match the $1000 ones.
swaaye - Friday, August 13, 2010 - link
Intel's pricing strategy seems to pay off in the end, historically. :)Will Robinson - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
It's pricey but very quick at pretty much everything.Thanks for the look anyway.
Could AT consider an article highlighting the need for software that really shines on this hardware?
Who's coding 6 core +HT stuff anyway?
Give them a push Anand :)
AstroGuardian - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
"If you're doing a lot of 3D rendering, video encoding or other heavily threaded tasks it makes sense. Otherwise, despite the class leading performance, it's not a good value. "Read the review!!! .... damn it
Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Server workloads and animation professionals.spunlex - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
don't forget cruncherskuwan - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
If you're a photographer doing image editing then Bibble 5 Pro will fully utilize 6 cores +HT. Bibble actually scales all the way up to 32 cores.Cheers
Golgatha - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I was all ready to read up until I realized I can't afford it.AstroGuardian - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
How come the 920 scores lower than the 750? Considering they are the same chip but the 920 has HT.ViRGE - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
They're not the same chip. 750 is Lynnfield (1156) while 920 is Bloomfield (1366). They do happen to have the same core and uncore clock speeds, but the 750 can turbo boost to higher clockspeeds than the 920 can. So that's most likely the reason the 750 is winning some tests.jfelano - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Intel and affordable don't belong in the same sentence.afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Don't see how they can't be in the same sentence. Who had the cheapest dual cores, when they first hit the market? I'll give you 1 hint. It wasn't AMD. Hell, I went with an Intel dual core, simply cause it was $200 dollars cheaper than anything AMD had to offer during the time.But hey, if all you're looking for is crappy $100 or less processor, then yes. Intel is not meant for you.
medi01 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Yep. Intel had "cheapest" (and crapiest) dual cores, which was an EXCEPTION from Intel's practices. How come it supports your argument?tech6 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I was really hoping this CPU would fall in the $500-$600 range but the price sort of makes sense as there really is no competition at this performance level from AMD so Intel can pretty much charge whatever it wants.Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Even AMD's 12 core Operteron is cheaper than Intel's "slightly affordable" hex.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
8-core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Both of which would suck huge donkey nuts, if you plan on using it at home. Unless you just happen to be rendering complex scenes. Which most aren't. You'll benefit more from the 980X or 970, for quick simple renderings, modeling, etc. Course, I'm going to assume that many ppl who buy these procs just want the best on the market and couldn't care less how it actually performs.mavizao2 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Well,For barely $950, you can get an Asus mobo with 2 CPU slots and 2 8-way magnycours 2.0ghz.
That is...you can get 16 real cores, totalling 32 ghz AND the motherboard.
Do you really think Intel can get even CLOSE to the performance yelded?
Anything that uses more then 4 cores will probably use as many as it finds (encoding, crunching etc etc).
So, guess what...no freaking way.
Intel is only a better buy if you're some kind of rich gamer...even then, i suppose a regular core I7 overclocked will do better than a 6 core that can't overclock "as good", as the trend seems to be coding is stuck on using at most 4 cores.
Accord99 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Actually yes, even in highly multi-threaded situations the i7-970 will be comparable to 2x6128s. And for the plenty of things that can't use 16 threads effectively, then it won't even be close.bleucharm28 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
if i'm going to spend that much, i rather spend the extra $100 and buy 980X.tno - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I think that's the point though. It's like Anand said, this is possibly an issue of binning. And before the haters keep on hating, let's consider what the sales numbers for these things are? EE's have never been sales leaders, they exist to show what will trickle down. Intel is so far head in their 32-nm node that they were able to get this thing out ahead of schedule and are probably working very hard to ramp up production at this node so that they can produce chips of this caliber at lower price points. I have the fullest expectation that within six months a nearly equivalent chip (minus AES and such a large L3) will be selling at the $400 price.What I want are features. I want Sandy Bridge to be a media and IO powerhouse, that can share graphics duties with a discrete GPU for huge power savings in the desktop realm. I want to be able to hear my freaking loud 4890 power all the way down when I'm watching a movie and then ramp up when I get my WoW on. I want 8 cores that will power down when not in use. I want IO integrated so that I don't have to slap a loud tiny fan over a Northbridge. And I want to build the whole system for less than $500 (plus that same 4890! ;) it does all I wanted). What do you think Anand? How far out am I from seeing my dream?
Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
HD4890?Have you been living under a rock?
It's HD5800 for you buddy.
Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
When I've read the title of a more affordable 6 cores, I was like yay!!!Then when I saw the price...
man this is like uber gay!
boden - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
*with lisp* this is like SUPER HAPPY!!!!!! like wow, spaztastic, rad.../sarcasm
CptTripps - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I have been running the i7 920 since late late 2008, I am extremely happy that it still holds up so well and I see no reason to upgrade for at least another couple years.QChronoD - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Totally agree. The only benchmark on here that I care about is the x264 encoding one. But my OC's [email protected] looks to be only a few percent slower than the new 970.Personally I'd like to see a 1080p benchmark, but thats not a big deal.
I do wish that you would add a highly overclocked chip to these benchmarks, like an old 920 @4.0 or something, so that us early adopters would be able to get an idea of how we still hold up to Intel's new hotness.
jlazzaro - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
agreed with throwing older (920/930) OC'd procs in the mixPatrick Wolf - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I don't understand why AT doesn't test games with max setings like with video cards. Doing so would be more helpful in seeing exactly what kind of CPU would actually be beneficial @ the settings most of us play at, or at least strive to play at.Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
No it won't help you see which CPU will be beneficial because test a game at max setting will tax more on the GPU then the CPU.Also I don't see how games can show the advantage of these multicore cpus, photo imaging and encoding shows a clearer picture.
Patrick Wolf - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Yeah but these tests only help people using the same GPU and game settings. Testing at GPU limited settings would show what kind of CPU you'd need before performance is affected.I suppose these tests show which CPU has the most raw power and getting the best peformer would be more "future proof". But it you're looking to upgrade it doesn't show if it'd even be worth it. Both kinds of tests should be included really.
kallogan - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I'm a cuda fan for 1080p video encoding. I'd never pay this price for a useless processor. My GTX 460 beat the shit out this i7 970 ;-) The only issue is that the Cuda x264 encoder in mediacoder allows only one pass for the moment...GPUs are our future !!!!
afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Imagine a 980X with two GTX 460s. Can always go more and more.ClagMaster - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
I could do better from a price/performance standpoint with the AMD 6-core processors than this i970.AMD Motherboards are cheaper and have much better connectivity. The price differential I could spend on better motherboards and more memory.
I run MCNP parallel jobs and the AMD processor just takes a little longer to complete the job.
stephenbrooks - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
MCNP as in the neutron transport code for designing nuclear reactors?ClagMaster - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link
Yes. I do NJOY too.What is so ridiculous about the AMD and Intel Quad and Hex core products is they are more powerful than multi-million dollar Cray XMP and YMP computers I have used 20 years ago.
Mr Perfect - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Looking at the Intel roadmap on page one is a little surprising. Are they honestly launching the new architecture in the mainstream and performance mainstream segments first? I was expecting them to launch the high-end chips first, like they did with Nehalem, and then trickle down the pricing ladder.If so, then great. We all won't have to wait another year for affordable Sandy Bridge systems.
cantpost - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Good sample dunno.I've got mine at 4 gig with 1.2 vcore but with load line calibration enabled. Otherwise the vcore drops by 0.1v and bsod time.
Reckon better overclockers than me could probably get 4.2 ghz out of it but I'm waiting for some hot weather too how it does when my room gets to 30C
jonny30 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
- until Intel provides a better ratio when we talk about price/performance I will not be impressed.........and I will not buy, off-course...........- and I am an owner of Q6600............
- SO, I am sorry Intel, but you do not impress ME, at least..........
- only disappoint ME, to be frankly............
- for the price of a single CPU that is shown-ed today, I can buy a WHOLE PC, when we talk about AMD X6...........
- and that so call performance of you new CPU, is only effective in tests, and in to a VERY small amount of applications...........
- in every day usage, not even the 920 - that belongs to a very good friend of mine - shows that is up to the price...........
- not these new versions of CPU...........
- so............what can I say more?
jlazzaro - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
....................... ..... . .. what? ....................................................
.................... ...........
ClagMaster - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
I agree.I too have a Q6600 that I bought for $200 using a DG965WH motherboard. It was excellent for its time.
Unless Intel or AMD markets a replacement processor that is 2x as capable than the Q6600 for $200 - $250 then I am not interested in upgrading.
Even the i7 920 or i5 760 does not provides that kind of cost/power normalized performance.
If my Q6600/DG965WH were to drop dead tomorrow, I would purchase a 95W Phenom II X4 955 Black with an ASUS 890G/SB850 chipset (for the ECC memory) because this provides the best value and connectivity for the dollar. I do not have applications that really need six cores. However, I can fully utilize four cores with media encoding and MNPC analysis.
AMD may not be first rate in processor performance, but this highly competent company and its partners offer excellent value parts.
bupkus - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
If you're like most people then you're busy pricing the hard drive and memory size you need first. From there you look for an affordable combination of cpu and motherboard. If you really could use a better cpu lets say for your work but the funds aren't available you compromise as best as you can.However, if you're not from Main Street but instead from Wall Street the chances are you buy the best available. It is for this class of customers that Intel offers their Gulftown series. If not for these customers Intel would not have a $1k desktop processor.
I'm not saying Intel is involved with the progressive redistribution of wealth to the top 1%, but I feel confident that marketers will be targeting the customers with the most money first and let second tier builders like AMD pick up the rest of us where the less attractive profit margins are found.
This is not a moral statement, just a practical one related to what is brought to the market. Don't get me wrong, I could get moral, but this is after all a technical site.
cauchy2k - Saturday, July 31, 2010 - link
If i get to buy an around $1000 cpu I'd go with the 980x,simply because it's the best and its next lower cpu is only $100 cheaper.When you get to spend around $1000 in a cpu $100 it's no big deal when you can get more advantadges.Mensinnylopard - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link
That's good software and I suggest to you please read care fully and take more information...mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 4, 2010 - link
The rendering page intrigued me, 25505 for the 970. Just for reference, my i7 860 oc'd to
4GHz gives 19140, enough to outpace a stock 1090T and come close to a 975. Of course,
these can be oc'd aswell, but just thought I'd mention since people were commenting on
how the lesser CPUs oc'd would compare.
What is especially interesting though is the result for an i7 930 system I found while trawling
for Cinebench data, namely 24972 at 4.3GHz - not that much less than the 970 (by comparison,
a stock 930 gives about 17200).
As the author says, as long as there's no competition from AMD, Intel can charge what it likes and
that part of the market will happily pay. Heck, if money really wasn't an issue, I'd buy them. :D But
then again, for rendering, if money really wasn't an issue I'd buy a 256-CPU Altix UV 1000, hehe...
Ian.
bustermk2 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link
I do 3d for a living and this is actually a cost effective replacement for my aging xeon rig.It is the 6 cores that won me over plus the fact that there probably won't be anything better coming out until late next year.
Having said that I wouldn't buy it for a home rig.