• 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.

**Official i9 discussion thread ** Core i9 6 cores

Yep. Confirmed working with the UD5, UD5 extreme, P6T, evga classified. Probably others I haven't paid attention to. Needs a bios update, then you're good to go.

I'm simultaneously excited by the chip and saddened that I probably can't spend a grand on a processor.
 
It does sound like a great cpu, but theres no way i could ever justify spending £1000.00 on a single component.
 
Thats too expensive for me.

I want a 32 nm upgrade because my 920 is a lame overclocker, though it would have to be around £200-£250 so I can sell my I7 to cover the cost.

Arent there any cheaper 32 nm quads planned for I7?
 
You get the impression 6 core AMD chips will be so dramatically cheaper at some point next year, that a £1k intel becomes a bit silly, as in the server workspace a 6 core AMD does incredibly well versus a 4 core Nehalem. Ok in games that aren't threaded enough theres an advantage, but in the few situations extra cores help you, a 6 core AMD will spank a 4 core Nehalem. I can't see there being many/any games like that next year though and with Bulldozer out the year after I can't see any cpu's next year offering any value in terms of upgrades.

Though AFAIK theres a serious chance Bulldozer's first iteration without any on die gpu will be AM3 compatible, meaning for me a AM3 and cheap quad or a 6 core next year offers the best value upgrade as Bulldozer is set to be a ridiculous upgrade in terms of power.

Not really sure why people mention SLI as a reason 6 cores are useful, you get SLI to maintain say 60-100fps at a higher res, or with 8xaa, rather than simply want 200fps instead of 100fps.

I've still only seen a single i7 review showing it massively ahead of a penryn, in a ridiculously unfair review, in an essentially ridiculous review at guru3d.

AT 1k, it will be a powerful and useful upgrade for those that rely on time critical info being processed for work then its worth it basically, for anyone else, its not worth it.
 
Why is everyone saying wait for Bulldozer??? Won`t Intel have something out at the same time AMD releases that chip that's got simler performance or will Bulldozer have so much pure power that no chip out by Intel will match it???
 
As powerful as this chip is i could never in a million years justify spending that much money just on a CPU. Still, i bet a lot of people here will go for it.
 
Sylver123 said:
Why is everyone saying wait for Bulldozer??? Won`t Intel have something out at the same time AMD releases that chip that's got simler performance or will Bulldozer have so much pure power that no chip out by Intel will match it???
Click to expand...

Well at this stage upgrading just isn't worth it frankly, if software moves on dramatically, the difference between one quad and another isn't going to be that big. 6 cores are interesting but Intel's will be ludicrously priced making it a very unattractive upgrade, and AMD's won't be on the newer architechture so is more of a stop gap though will likely be infinately more affordable than Intel's version.

But if software does make big leaps fowards and games move to use more cores, not just use them, I don't care if a game uses 100% of a 3Ghz dual core, or 5% of each core on a 32core cpu, I'm talking about needing more cores for more power for more complex stuff. Thats incredibly unlikely to happen over the next 12-18 months also. So when software starts getting demanding you're really looking at both next gen architechtures by Intel and AMD.

Its less "wait for Bulldozer" its more "wait for software that might need it" and a happy coincidence. likwise its not really "wait for Bulldozer rather than Intel" its more, "we already basically know Bullldozer will kick Nehalem/P2's ass, we don't know when/where intel's next chip is so we're naming the next gen chip we do know".

Personally I think Intel's next architechture will almost certainly be surprisingly similar to AMD's. A much higher Interger to FPU ratio in power as gpu's on die will have their own FPU power so it will be rather wasted on the CPU's silicon. As with AMD I can't see Intel fitting a GPU on die with their 8 core new cpu's in the first revision and will likely follow AMD by dropping in a GPU die either on a 4 core version(maybe) or most likely dropping a gpu die into the mix with the next shrink as you have more space.

As we move to a more defined architecture of CPU = interger and gpu = fpu, theres realistically less room for differences, probably the hardest thing about cpu design is balance of fpu/int/cache in terms of transistors and power, remove one huge block from the design and you've got far less differences.

But this is where AMD and Bulldozer could shine, at this stage AMD are quite a bit ahead of Intel in terms of gpu's and both companies first intergrated gpu's, well AMD's looks like its going to be HUGELY more powerful(though both are aimed at low end platforms). It could well be AMD's massive lead in gpu developement that hands them the better overall architecture next generation.

xGaffner said:
As powerful as this chip is i could never in a million years justify spending that much money just on a CPU. Still, i bet a lot of people here will go for it.
Click to expand...

you'd be surprised how few people will actually buy it, even on an enthusiast forum. I mean if you look on xtremesys forums, lots of people have high end cpu, though a lot of the most vocal people running benchies on high end kit, get that kit free, the massive majority on this and those forums have budget end cpu's overclocked as far as possible. Theres a huge amount more i7 920's in use by people on these forums than i7 960's, and as the high end chip price gets bigger, less people buy.
 
Last edited:
Well future technology looks good, just have to wait for pice drops:(, is it wrong to be asking for price drops before its even been released?:p
 
Nice chip, insane price. Was waiting on this chip to upgrade but I think I'll pass.. I wonder when more games start using more cores.
 
So there is no 32 nm equivalent to the I7 920 planned?

Intel would be daft to miss out on the most obvious CPU that most LGA1366 would upgrade to without hesitation.
 
bhavv said:
So there is no 32 nm equivalent to the I7 920 planned?

Intel would be daft to miss out on the most obvious CPU that most LGA1366 would upgrade to without hesitation.
Click to expand...

2010 as a lot of people keep mentioning is a going to be a quirky year for upgrades.
Ofc you are going to see 32nm refreshes of 1336 as well as 1156 cpu's,otherwise 2010 is going to be an exceptionally stale year and that's something that wont be allowed to occur by all party's driving the pc markets.

The question is with the release of Sandy Bridge in the latter half/end of 2010 it's hard to justify upgrading to them unless ofc your pc is already so tired it's worth it to you personally to do that.

Bulldozer is a 2 headed coin,flip it the other way and Amd are nearly 2 generations of cpu's behind Intel at the time they plan to release it.

Dont get me wrong here it has the potential to make a serious impact in the market.

I just hope for the sake of the market they can deliver it in all it's glory.

Which is all pretty much irrelevant atm because it's not slated for release until 2011 anyway.

Thuban and higher clocked Phenom II's will fill that stop gap.
 
Last edited:
I dont even know what a sandy bridge is, but at least it will have some extra traction so that I dont fall off while crossing it.

32 nm CPU please :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom