• 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

This forum seems to be really fixated on the idea that everyone with a desktop has one to play games on. Redefining terms such that any powerful desktop that doesn't play games is a 'workstation' doesn't really change this. Categorically stating beliefs such as any more than four cores (or three, or two variously) is a waste or that no one can use more than 4gb of ram is ridiculous.

Dangerous has already provided a solid example that shows this is not the case. I'll add cad work to video editing, and I know I'm not the only person on these boards who uses their computer for design. From my perspective modelling doesn't really care how many cores you have, but rendering and finite element analysis certainly do. The difference between three hours and two taken to finish calculations is not trivial.

I fully agree that gamers with sense will not buy this. Some will regardless, for the same reason that gamers moved to the q6600 well before games could use four threads, and the same reason that another load went to i7 as soon as it was released. There's even a few die hard ones gaming on 975s for no reason that makes any sense to me whatsoever, but this is their call really. I shall have to sit back and envy the people on here running games on 1/3rd of a six core chip.
 
I agree with Jon in that some people will buy it. Mine is a gaming rig. End of. And yet, I run 4.0GHz and everything is good, even GTA4. I imagine my rig won't slow up for DX10 for a while, and how much will I miss out on DX11? Six Cores? For what? I don't run CPU intensive programs. I don't build 3D models of chemicals and stuff... I play MW2.

Still, as Jon says, some people will buy it to get an extra 10, maybe 20FPS out of Dirt 2. But still, at resolutions we play at these days (circa 1920+), it's all about the gcards
 
6 cores for gaming = Wont get the bang for buck really. id imagine this cpu will cost a lot of cash, roughly £280++ and games need to be written to use all 6 cores.
but il wait til benchies come out and see whats what.
 
I'm very keen to get my hands on one or more :)
The number crunching power will be massive.
If they overclock high as well then all the better.

The work my PC's do takes years to complete so the extra power of these chips is very welcome indeed.
 
drunkenmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of "this CPU is only good for gaming if you have SLI", is simply to stop the CPU bottlenecking the GPU. However, in most games, this is never a problem. GTA4 and other open games are usually more CPU reliant, but a highly clocked dual core can still keep up with most SLI setups and games right now.

If you were to play GTA4 with a dual core and a couple of 5870's, I'd say the CPU would definitely hold you back, but even that's an extreme case.

Also, while I'm excited about i9, I won't be upgrading until the next architecture and process shrink. Same for DX11 cards. I probably won't upgrade my card until the next "wave". 6870's or whatever. Not because I don't want to - a 5970 would go lovely in my system, I just can't afford to be shelling out £1k+ every year on PC components.

This is definitely a workstation CPU (as is the i7 for all intents and purposes), so while it might provide huge benefits for someone who relies on the speed for their job or something, it just isn't worth it to the majority of gamers. I don't really need an i7, I only went for it because I didn't want to buy into a finished socket (775).
 
Last edited:
Certainly doesn't look like a gamer or mainstream chip.

Quadcore is certainly sufficient for the forseeable future, it's more a question of needing more clockspeed (or performance per clock), which obviously will need the dieshrink and/or some other way of keeping the heat down. In terms of creating multithreaded games you will always get diminishing returns as it so difficult to break down tasks into evenly distributed threads. Essentially for a six-core cpu to have a significant advantage over a quadcore, you need your 5th and upwards busiest threads combined to be reasonably demanding relative to your 1st busiest.
 
Id safely say my 920 do will do me for a few years yet, even at stock its a flying machine, the fact that its so easy to clock to 4ghz makes it even more of a bargain. The 6 core cpu is a great technical achievement, (which i applaud) but its price puts it out of the reach of the normal user.
 
While I agree with most of the "not required for gaming" sentiment, I don't think you should underestimate the impact eyefinity will have on CPU requirements, the ability to run 3 ( or more!) monitors as standard, without serious hacking/fiddling will mean that 3 screens will replace 2 as 'the norm' on most of our desktops. Where previously only those with expensive add in hardware (TH2Go) could enjoy sensible surround gaming - (albeit at rubbish resolutions) - with the 5xxx series it will now be available, effortlessly, for everyone willing to buy a 3rd monitor. Now that resolutions of 5760x1200 are available routinely in lots of games, we will again see the CPU, as well as the GPU, getting a good shoeing
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
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?
Click to expand...

I read an article somewhere the other week about an i7 930, on the article, it said that it wasn't known whether this would be a 45nm part, or whether it would use a 32nm process.

If it does turn out to be 32nm, and it proves to be a better chip for overclocking than the 920 is, then I can see this processor being very popular.

I'd probably buy one if this was the case.

::edit::

source

There's plenty of other stuff to read about this chip as well through google.
 
I believed most people who upgraded to I7 9xx did'nt really need the power of the CPU. They just simply wanted to have the best new toy to play with. When they get bored with this I7 9xx, it would simply end up in the members market and then they'd go for I9. Just my 2 pence.
 
I'd be amazed if Intel release these with a £1000 price tag. For the likes of Dangerous who's doing heavy HD movie editing it does actually make some sense, and you can't easily push the processing demands to networked boxes. If they're aiming this CPU at the server market Intel can go whistle it will NOT get a decent level of saturation, if I can get 4 Quad racks for the price of one 6 core i7 it makes no sense. The only people that should / may buy this are those that need to pack as much power into a single box as humanly possible and who dont care about cost (Mac Pro users maybe). For anyone doing scientific work, a cluster of Quad's will ass rape a 6 core i7. Really don't understand why Intel are pricing this so high. Pointless.
 
Sylver123 said:
I wonder if one of the reasons why Intel is pricing i9 chip so high is because they can, because there`s no competition from AMD.
Click to expand...

not saying its fair, but business is business wouldnt surprise me if thats part of the reason for its high price. But keep in mind its all speculation untill its released.
 
dangerstat said:
I'd be amazed if Intel release these with a £1000 price tag. For the likes of Dangerous who's doing heavy HD movie editing it does actually make some sense, and you can't easily push the processing demands to networked boxes. If they're aiming this CPU at the server market Intel can go whistle it will NOT get a decent level of saturation, if I can get 4 Quad racks for the price of one 6 core i7 it makes no sense. The only people that should / may buy this are those that need to pack as much power into a single box as humanly possible and who dont care about cost (Mac Pro users maybe). For anyone doing scientific work, a cluster of Quad's will ass rape a 6 core i7. Really don't understand why Intel are pricing this so high. Pointless.
Click to expand...

Please explain how Intel manages to sell xeons then please? The 6 core xeon 7455 retails for $4,319 or abour £3000. Even the 4 core xeon E7440 sells for $2759 so the new i9 is a bargain at $1200 to $1300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom