Intel to Sell Six-Core Gulftown Core i7 980X in March



+ Add a Comment


In my over 50 years (yes I waited for the next gen of vacuum tubes to build a more powerful push pull paralel ham transmitter when I was a teen) of getting excited about new tech the argument was always made by some dork that "it is not needed, why do we need that??" After all, how could we ever use 640 K of Ram when 64 K did most of what we needed Etc.
So we do not need 12 threads now, but soon we will be able to use them and then we will depend on them and eventually we will need them. Those that do not have the vision or the bucks just stand back and wait. No one will belittle you for waiting so don't belittle us for leading the way.


Keith E. Whisman

i will be saving my pennies to purchase one of these erection inducing products of technical desire.



 Dear God, the PPD one could get with this thing folding is.. is I don't even know.  Will cost you Arm, Leg and First Born, then probably your wife when the power bill comes.


~~The difference between insanity and genius is merely succes~~



 NICE, 6 cores of pure power, but I think I'll wait for AMD's six-core. 

 3D work is gonna kick ass on both platforms. Can't wait, WOOOT!


Teh Rig:

AMD Phenom 720 (Unlocked to Quad, Stable @ 3.6 Ghz 1.47v)
Gigabyte Micro ATX 785gx Motherboard
G.Skill 4GB 1333 DDR3 8-8-8-21 @ 1.6v
HIS ATI Radeon HD4670 (CCC OC'd)
550w Corsai



I was stoked till I saw the price... i thought they were gonna come out with something mainstream, like in the $400 area.... and they will. They'll release this one so everyone will spend 1K on it, then release another at more than half the price lower that's 200MHz lower that overclocks, just as well.



but i can wait and build my new comp couple of monhs later..

so. nvidia has still some time to come up with most powerful graphic card onthe market. if they don't i will have to go with ati -for the first time



so if there are 6 cores, Crysis will take 4 for itself, and leave the other 2 for other applications? nice to have the other 2 for something extra, but the cost is ridiculous.



Why do we insist on more and more cores?

I will let u in on a little secret:


I mean, come ON guys.

We only just got optomised for 4 threads, now we've got 8 and 12-threading processors!

What we should be doing is the reverse of hyper-threading:  8 cores compressing into 4 logical cores.

The problem is, (and please correct me if i'm wrong), a 4-core processor running two 2-threaded processes will only use two of its cores at a time, rather than using 2 of its cores for one of the processes, and two for the other.

If our CPUs could do that, it would seriously increase the linearization of more cores to more performance.



it's pronounced ELEET NEWBEE.

and it means talks like a n00b, knows like a 1337.

As opposed to a 1amma, who thinks like n00b, talks like 1337; better a 1337-n00b than a 1amma.


Keith E. Whisman

not very elete to say that a six core isnt needed. go grow a pair and leave the hardcore toys to the gownups.



I hope you and your family are doing better now! :)



It doesn't work that way, a single threaded application can only process so quickly.  Telling two cpu's to work on the same problem doesn't change the fact that it is only single threaded.  that's like giving two people a math problem and the steps to solve it, and assuming that because there's two people those steps will go by faster. It would be more beneficial if someone wrote some software that can analyze code and find efficient ways to split it up (which i think has been tried but failed...)



Ow... my jaw dropped too fast...

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.