Intel's Core i7 970 Reviewed, (Slightly) More Affordable 6-core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 29, 2010 3:23 AM ESTPower Consumption
Power consumption is about the same as the i7 980X. You get better idle power than any other LGA-1366 CPU thanks to the 32nm transistors, and load power consumption equivalent to the original Nehalem. The Core i7 970 is still a 130W chip, it's by no means cool, but compared to other 130W parts it's quite efficient.
Overclocking
Despite a 50% increase in cores and L3 cache, the 32nm Gulftown parts have proven to be excellent overclockers. I had no problems pushing 4.13GHz on my Core i7 980X a few months ago. The Core i7 970 didn't do quite as well unfortunately. With a 1.40V core voltage I was able to hit 3.96GHz but I couldn't get Windows 7 stable at anything higher.
A 24% overclock isn't bad, but it's just not as good as what we're used to. You may have better luck than I did, however it's also possible that the 970 exists to make use of the Gulftowns that couldn't yield at 3.33GHz. In other words, these parts may just not be as overclockable as the 980X.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
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.