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
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.