• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gulftown 6-core is officially named "Core i7 980X"

Piano Man said:
Whats that i7 930 in the graph. A 32nm version of the i7920? That would be sexy.
Click to expand...

no.. keep dreaming..

cuz the 960 is 45nm.

Means now way in hell the budget 930 will be 45nm.

You wont see quadcore 32nm on i7's B4 u see them on dual gainestown boards.
 
Seems a bit fishy, not least because it gives no scope for any other sensibly named products whatsoever for basically any i7 supporting platform.
OK there's a "mysterious" 930 (presumably 2.8GHz Quad core), but that's it.

When they imply the 980X is going until the end of 2010, that suggests no speed increases for quad core, so nothing major except the lower end releases until 2011.
In a way it kind of reflects what they need to do though, so maybe it makes sense.
AMD cannot compete at the high end, but only in the lower markets, so that's where Intel are going to focus their new stuff while appeasing the enthusiasts with a single new high end release and no real other changes.
 
Computer Bottleneck said:
If only Intel would release harvested Gulftowns with 2 or 3 cores disabled.

But with a stock speed of only 2.4 Ghz I don't think this will be happening.
Click to expand...
maybe I am misunderstanding you but if you think the 6 core Gulftown is at 2.4 you are mistaken. it will be a 3.33 cpu according to that info I linked to.
 
toyota said:
maybe I am misunderstanding you but if you think the 6 core Gulftown is at 2.4 you are mistaken. it will be a 3.33 cpu according to that info I linked to.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't read the entire article.

So if i7-980X is priced at $999 then maybe the slower 3.2 Ghz quad core version of Gulftown for the dual socket server boards will be more affordable.
 
Why is Intel calling this an i7 as well? I think an increase in physical cores warrants an updated name, this is just confusing for consumers. Intel needs serious work on their nomenclature.
 
Enigmatic said:
Why is Intel calling this an i7 as well? I think an increase in physical cores warrants an updated name, this is just confusing for consumers. Intel needs serious work on their nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Well Intel is also calling a 32nm dual core model i5 when previously this was reserved for quad core (as in i5 750)
 
Computer Bottleneck said:
Well Intel is also calling a 32nm dual core model i5 when previously this was reserved for quad core (as in i5 750)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's also equally non-sensical. I see how they're trying to make it entry-level (i3), mainstream (i5), high-end (i7), and ultra high-end (i9). But the characteristics that distinguish the levels seem arbitrary and don't follow a consistent logic (unless someone sees something here I don't).

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway.
 
Enigmatic said:
Yeah, that's also equally non-sensical. I see how they're trying to make it entry-level (i3), mainstream (i5), high-end (i7), and ultra high-end (i9). But the characteristics that distinguish the levels seem arbitrary and don't follow a consistent logic (unless someone sees something here I don't).

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the grouping scheme you are talking about....

Lots of people will probably end up arguing on whether Core i5 660/661 is worthy of the same MSRP as Core i5 750.

I might be inclined to go Core i5 660. At least with that chip I know the bin quality is there on the new 32nm process. With Core i5 750 the overclocked power consumption can be all over the place (I have already seen this happen in several reviews.)
 
Last edited:
Enigmatic said:
Why is Intel calling this an i7 as well? I think an increase in physical cores warrants an updated name, this is just confusing for consumers. Intel needs serious work on their nomenclature.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter what its called?

Sure for the folks who want their component list to look cool it will matter, the Dodge Charger isn't called the Dodge Retreater for a reason, but whether it is called i7 980X or i9 980X the three consumers who are going to buy one (versus the Xeons) at retail are going to see the product differentiation in the price-tag anyways and that pretty much tells the story that is worth reading.
 
Computer Bottleneck said:
Speaking of the grouping scheme you are talking about....

Lots of people will probably end up arguing on whether Core i5 660/661 is worthy of the same MSRP as Core i5 750.

I might be inclined to go Core i5 660. At least with that chip I know the bin quality is there on the new 32nm process. With Core i5 750 the overclocked power consumption can be all over the place (I have already seen this happen in several reviews.)
Click to expand...

The only thing you have seen, is the different sites using different methods to measure the power, or using different vcore to overclock. All the chips take the same amount of power. The same will happen in 32 nm.

Yes, I realize all chips have a slightly different vcore, but the difference is so small, that it changes to total power very little, but again, the same thing will happen with 32mn. I don't know why you think these chips will be so good, they are just one more shrink down from 45mn.
 
now what i find funny is they said its finalized as the i7 980?

Then how come the last sheet i saw said i7 1025?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top