Intel's Core i7 970 Reviewed, (Slightly) More Affordable 6-core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 29, 2010 3:23 AM ESTFinal Words
In March I called the Core i7 980X the first Extreme Edition CPU that I was excited about. Price aside, you make no tradeoffs with the 980X. You get the absolute best performance in heavily threaded applications and nearly the same in all other workloads. Power consumption was also a non-issue, at least compared to last year's 45nm quad-core. Whether or not the 980X was worth it really depended on what sort of applications you're using. 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.
Recounting an old conclusion is one of the laziest things I can do as a writer, but I'm doing it here because the very same points hold true to today's Core i7 970. You save $100 and give up unlocked multipliers and a very small amount of performance. If you're going to be running at stock clock speeds, the 970 is a fine way to make the Gulftown jump a little more palatable. If you're planning on overclocking, the 980X may be a better option. The unlocked multiplier helps and you may be able to get a little more headroom out of the 980X if the Core i7 970 is truly just a binned 980X.
Thankfully at these price points there's not much deliberating necessary. You either have the budget for it or you don't. And if you're remotely considering splurging, keep in mind that quad-core will get even faster early next year with Sandy Bridge.
Like the 980X, the Core i7 970 isn't something I'd personally buy simply because of the price. It's a great performer however. For some, that's all that matters. And looking at Intel's roadmap, you won't see a significantly faster 6-core replacement until Q4 2011.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
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 920@3.6 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.