just bought a E8400 lol, won't be doing another build until an 8core intel cpu comes out
Dammm i am still running a E6850
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel i9 chip
- Thread starter rixarena
- Start date
Dammm i am still running a E6850
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,769
if it all true of a minimum of £650 then I won't buy it - still rip off by intel pricing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
Hmmm, which enthusiasts will want an i7 now? I thought they were meant to be top of the range? Isn't Intel kind of shooting itself in the foot here?
Roll on i9, except they'll be even more expensive than the current i7.
Roll on i9, except they'll be even more expensive than the current i7.
Well that's a safe bet considering ocuk strictly forbid nude pictures
and if you are serious about that, lets all hope that it IS above 350 lmao LinktoInsanity said:
I think you answered your own question there. There's two sorts of i7 buyers (outside of the business world):
1) Those who don't mind spending a bit more for amazing performance (i7 920).
1) Those who have far too much money and want ridiculously amazing performance (i7 965/975).
Those in group 2 will move to the i9, but it's unlikely to be cheap enough (to start with) to attract those from group 1, so the i7 1366 CPUs will still have their uses for a while.
Last edited:
Top of the range quad core? Yes and they still will be when the i9 comes out.
Really it was only worthwhile going down the LGA 1366 route with a i7 920 if you intend to upgrade (at some cost) to six cores later IMO.
DragonQ summed it up rather well. The problem is I can't see anybody who has spent lots of money on a i7 rig now, "downgrading" to a LGA 1156 socket so all the non business people that got persuaded to switch to i7 920/LGA 1366 will just have to wait until 6 core processors drop in price enough for an upgrade.
As said by DragonQ, people would bought i940 or above will move to the new 6 cores straight away.
There has always been individuals prepared to buy £800 extreme cpus from Intel and that won't change.
Well that's a safe bet considering ocuk strictly forbid nude pictures
I didn't say I would have any of my "Bits" on show. You can do full nude artisically
ANyway, my bet is as safe as houses.
£650 sounds like the right ballpark to me too sadly. $999 seems to be their normal choice, though the hex core is unlikely to only exist with an unlocked multi.
I think there's a market for people who want dual socket but can't afford it, the six core system is likely to fall inbetween the single quad core and the dual quad core in price. I'm hoping the current x58 boards support
I think there's a market for people who want dual socket but can't afford it, the six core system is likely to fall inbetween the single quad core and the dual quad core in price. I'm hoping the current x58 boards support
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 57
Six cores? Why have 6 cores if you don't make use of them. That's a lot of threads. What OS or software would you run?
For example, we've had 64-bit for a long time now. In theory 64-bit handles twice the data that 32-bit can and therefore halves the processing time. In real terms this means 2GHz x64 CPU should be roughly equal to a 4GHz x86 CPU. The OSes and software just aren't keeping up. Windows 7 = Vista SP3. W7 is what Vista should have been a few years ago.
The hardware technology is always moving forward at a greater pace than the software tech. Soon we will have a 10GHz CPU that you'll have run multiple Virtual OSes to make the full use of the hardware.
One slightly underwhelmed 64-bit user
For example, we've had 64-bit for a long time now. In theory 64-bit handles twice the data that 32-bit can and therefore halves the processing time. In real terms this means 2GHz x64 CPU should be roughly equal to a 4GHz x86 CPU. The OSes and software just aren't keeping up. Windows 7 = Vista SP3. W7 is what Vista should have been a few years ago.
The hardware technology is always moving forward at a greater pace than the software tech. Soon we will have a 10GHz CPU that you'll have run multiple Virtual OSes to make the full use of the hardware.
One slightly underwhelmed 64-bit user
Six cores? Why have 6 cores if you don't make use of them. That's a lot of threads. What OS or software would you run?
For example, we've had 64-bit for a long time now. In theory 64-bit handles twice the data that 32-bit can and therefore halves the processing time. In real terms this means 2GHz x64 CPU should be roughly equal to a 4GHz x86 CPU. The OSes and software just aren't keeping up. Windows 7 = Vista SP3. W7 is what Vista should have been a few years ago.
The hardware technology is always moving forward at a greater pace than the software tech. Soon we will have a 10GHz CPU that you'll have run multiple Virtual OSes to make the full use of the hardware.
One slightly underwhelmed 64-bit user
Yeah I agree with you.
The development of technology is too fast for the software programmers to catch up. We are not even using one format to its full potential before the next comes and replaces it.
It's a nightmare for all the coders out there. It's one of the reasons why we have so many software/driver issues thesedays. Too many products but too little time for them to learn how to code it.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm sure all new technologies will be used and there will definitely be performance increase. It's just that the improvements may not be as noticable that's all. Just like how gaming on a Phenom II x4 rig feels similar to the i7 (it becomes a real life performance vs spec on peper thing).
For the i9 chips, I'm guessing it will be faster render, encode and decoding times and better power consumption and overclocking due to it being a 32nm chip.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I feel very out of date now with my baby E8400
don't worry if you feel out of date, an e8400 is fine for most programs and games IMO
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 57
I concur! PakJai .
Too much backward compatibility. Time to move on. What's the point of having a light speed PC if you're OS/software/drivers have to be compatible with Win95 on a 386. That was then, this is now!
I bet the next version of M$ Windoze is already in the alpha stage. I bet it will run on a Pentium 1, or worse (a Cyrix?!?). They should draw a line somewhere and say this is a PC, and this is PC2. Get rid of all that junk code, please. Give us some no nonsense OSes and software to go with it. Let us make the most of our hardware.
PC games (the rant continues) are another prime example. Not many x64 version games and most don't use more than 1gig RAM. Why is it that a PS3 or Xbox is better to play games than a far technologically superior PC?
I'm off to the trick cyclist.
Sorry to go off topic folks. I'm sure the i9 will live up to it's expectations. I just hope that it can be used to its extreme and not just for benching.
Too much backward compatibility. Time to move on. What's the point of having a light speed PC if you're OS/software/drivers have to be compatible with Win95 on a 386. That was then, this is now!
I bet the next version of M$ Windoze is already in the alpha stage. I bet it will run on a Pentium 1, or worse (a Cyrix?!?). They should draw a line somewhere and say this is a PC, and this is PC2. Get rid of all that junk code, please. Give us some no nonsense OSes and software to go with it. Let us make the most of our hardware.
PC games (the rant continues) are another prime example. Not many x64 version games and most don't use more than 1gig RAM. Why is it that a PS3 or Xbox is better to play games than a far technologically superior PC?
I'm off to the trick cyclist.
Sorry to go off topic folks. I'm sure the i9 will live up to it's expectations. I just hope that it can be used to its extreme and not just for benching.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Now i'm no expert, but that looks pretty packed.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 412
- Location
- carnmoney outside Belfast
Apparently it's 130W TDP.
They already have a six core CPU on the market though, the Opteron, and it's only like £400, or less. Also the TDP is really low, like 65 or 95W. Server CPUs can be used in desktop PCs.. they're designed to be running all the time with a heavy load. Pretty useful for gaming then
reliable estimate.
Custom PC reviewed it this month in their mag. To quote them, "...attractive to those upgrading a power-starved data center". Earlier in the article it says [about xeon w5580] "while this is a hefty increase in power consumption, the far greater performance of the xeon means that they are more power efficient"
Unfortunatly AMD limited the clock to get that 75W so they only run at 2.6GHz.
Games are coded to optimly run on the 360 and ps3 where as they're coded to run on 100's of different hardware setups for pc's Again that topic was covered in custom pc this month lol. It explained some of the headaches that game coders run into when coding for each consol and for pc's.
Back on topic, Do you guys think that the change to 32nm will give a big improvement over 45nm tick for tick? I know for what ive read that it should oc higher and run cooler.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Starting to reach their limits? Not at all. 22, 16 and 11nm are all planned, and then we can start to think about going sub 1nm.
