Intel Core i9 Gulftown Benchmarks!?!?!? Not very imressive..........

who knows if they are real or not. But just to let you know that CPU has been renamed i7-980X instead of i9 as originally planned.

Will there be any 32nm chips for the 1156 boards?

+ 7000 p. in 3D Mark Vantage CPU score? That's OK. Keep in mind that there're no clockspeeds posted... What if it's Core i7 950 vs 2.2 GHz Core i9/i7-980X? I think they are as fake as possible, to be honest.

Read the article guys. 2.4GHz I9 vs a i7 965, so it's SLOWER in clock speeds, but still beating it. If that's real, that's something to be excited about.

[quote name='Luke_SLI' post='973965' date='Jan 2 2010, 10:12 AM']Will there be any 32nm chips for the 1156 boards? The dual core i3s will be 32nm chips. There was a post about i7 980X performance before, here. The extra two cores and two threads really isn't going to make a difference in gaming performance. Clock-for-clock, the 980X is exactly the same as previous Socket 1366 processors and since most games are GPU limited, there isn't really isn't going to be any core scaling. What really will benefit from the extra cores and threads is applications that are properly multi-threaded, such as video encoders. Just keep in mind that the 980X is an Extreme Edition and will cost quite a lot of money. What you will get for that money is obviously the six HyperThreaded cores, an unlocked multiplier for easier overclocking and a 32nm chip that won't run at the same outrageous temperatures as a 45nm Nehalam and use considerably less power.

[quote name='Goddess84' post='973976' date='Jan 2 2010, 01:28 AM']Read the article guys. 2.4GHz I9 vs a i7 965, so it's SLOWER in clock speeds, but still beating it. If that's real, that's something to be excited about. Oops... I did it again! I mostly read the thread, not the article.

The extra two cores and two threads really isn't going to make a difference in gaming performance. Clock-for-clock, the 980X is exactly the same as previous Socket 1366 processors and since most games are GPU limited, there isn't really isn't going to be any core scaling. What really will benefit from the extra cores and threads is applications that are properly multi-threaded, such as video encoders.

Also easier prevent CPU-bottleneck for the GPU. I'm sure that Fermi in SLI will be bottlenecked by 4.2 GHz Core i7. Have you seen pics of Crysis 2? http://razetheworld.gameriot.com/blogs/Mon...nd-First-Screen Looks like one more hardware upgrade. Last thing we need is a Zenvo on speed-limited highways...

[quote name='RuffeDK' post='973999' date='Jan 2 2010, 11:38 AM']Oops... I did it again! I mostly read the thread, not the article. Also easier prevent CPU-bottleneck for the GPU. I'm sure that Fermi in SLI will be bottlenecked by 4.2 GHz Core i7. Have you seen pics of Crysis 2? http://razetheworld.gameriot.com/blogs/Mon...nd-First-Screen Looks like one more hardware upgrade. Last thing we need is a Zenvo on speed-limited highways... It's not going to prevent any bottlenecks because the 980X isn't faster clock-for-clock. The reason that the Core i7 platform doesn't bottleneck multi-GPU setups as much as Core 2 solutions is because Nehalam is faster clock-for-clock and because of QPI, a quicker, more efficient system BUS than the FSB. The 980X offers no additional features over the Nehalam processors other than the two extra cores and associated threads. Extra cores don't help the transfer of data from the CPU to the GPU.

[quote name='The Professor' post='974019' date='Jan 2 2010, 03:27 AM']It's not going to prevent any bottlenecks because the 980X isn't faster clock-for-clock. The reason that the Core i7 platform doesn't bottleneck multi-GPU setups as much as Core 2 solutions is because Nehalam is faster clock-for-clock and because of QPI, a quicker, more efficient system BUS than the FSB. The 980X offers no additional features over the Nehalam processors other than the two extra cores and associated threads. Extra cores don't help the transfer of data from the CPU to the GPU. It doesn't? Well, that's where I got something wrong... Let's hope 980X goes 5GHz on air, lol. If not, Intel has wasted more $$$ than they did on Larrabee :mellow:

they havent wasted any money, there are many people that want as much CPU power they can get in one CPU. as mentioned, video encoders, photo editors et etc will all see a big boost. i would also pick one of these up if i had the money. or rtather two, in the dual 1366 socket motherboard by EVGA coming out soon

[quote name='Qazax' post='974028' date='Jan 2 2010, 03:43 AM']or rtather two, in the dual 1366 socket motherboard by EVGA coming out soon Really? Can't wait, now!

I am more excited about the move to 32nm than anything else. I hope 4.4 - 5.0 Ghz on air is a possibility.

[quote name='Luke_SLI' post='974088' date='Jan 2 2010, 06:07 AM']I am more excited about the move to 32nm than anything else. I hope 4.4 - 5.0 Ghz on air is a possibility. Wouldn't get too excited yet, Intel has confirmed that there will be no 32nm quads in 2010. The 980X will be the only game in town for a while.

[quote name='Qazax' post='974028' date='Jan 1 2010, 06:43 PM']or rtather two, in the dual 1366 socket motherboard by EVGA coming out soon Well dual LGA 1366 socket motherboards have been around for quite some time, but I'm assuming that this one is meant for Core i7/i9s, not Xeons. So the thought has me grinning from ear to ear. If only it wasn't EVGA... Not at slam at EVGA in terms of quality or anything like that, but their boards are just so damned expensive up here in Canada compared to boards from other manufacturers of equivalent quality and features. But now I'm thinking about how much I can squirrel away for a second 920, new motherboard, PSU and probably a couple top notch CPU coolers that aren't beasts like my TRUE. And then I also have to hope such a set up will fit in my HAF 922. Man... 2010 looks like it could be an expensive year for me. Then again, its not like 2009 wasn't.

not impressed.... but it's just my opinion! besides wasn't someone at nvidia's top who said cpu's in 4 years would be only 3x faster then they are now?

[quote name='OblivioN_' post='974136' date='Jan 2 2010, 07:57 PM']not impressed.... but it's just my opinion! besides wasn't someone at nvidia's top who said cpu's in 4 years would be only 3x faster then they are now? I suppose that they also said that GPUs will be a bazillion times faster :rolleyes:. People will say anything to move their products. As for CPUs only being three times faster than current offerings, that is total BS. All Intel or AMD has to do is add more cores. Multicoded applications will become more common and thus, performance will scale.

[quote name='ExtremeGrandpa' post='973963' date='Jan 1 2010, 07:11 PM']who knows if they are real or not. But just to let you know that CPU has been renamed i7-980X instead of i9 as originally planned. Thank's Grandpa, that explains me something.... I figured if that's going to be another high end cpu in the i7 series, there won't be any mid range 6 core cpu's and the price ..... well i can only imagine!!! I don't see my self spending $1000 on a cpu....

Bit-Tech already said they got an early gulftown sample and it wasn't impressive, so these are most likely accurate IMO.

[quote name='slamscaper' post='974098' date='Jan 2 2010, 12:01 AM']Wouldn't get too excited yet, Intel has confirmed that there will be no 32nm quads in 2010. The 980X will be the only game in town for a while. Looks like I should just suck it up and move on to an 860 now then :shrug:

^^tough luck buddy

[quote name='Ultimate PC Man' post='974826' date='Jan 3 2010, 10:11 AM']^^tough luck buddy Any interest in an e8600 on a 750iftw board?

[quote name='Heedless_0ne' post='974676' date='Jan 3 2010, 06:11 PM']Bit-Tech already said they got an early gulftown sample and it wasn't impressive, so these are most likely accurate IMO. It's possible that they used a BIOS that did not yet fully support the new chip. I know Gigabyte only recently made beta BIOSs available for their boards that do just that.

no thanks luke,ill be changing sockets too

[quote name='The Professor' post='974946' date='Jan 3 2010, 06:24 PM']It's possible that they used a BIOS that did not yet fully support the new chip. I know Gigabyte only recently made beta BIOSs available for their boards that do just that. No doubt. They did say it was an early sample, but i personally consider them beyond knowledgable, and anyone can predict from point A, how good you could expect it to be when it comes to point B. Especially when you're in that industry and get test samples for things all the time. That being said, I don't see how a hexacore, even on 32 is going to help anyone practically anyway, when quads on 45 aren't anywhere near being taxed. I think the numbers are believable. Slight improvement over quads. Nothing to call home about. People will buy it for the sake of having it. Same as any Intel Extreme.

Happy New Year every one!!! Before starting this thread, i did a few forum searches for similar discussions, but couldn't find any... So here we go Looking to upgrade my system this year and off course falling into debate on whether i should get i7 or wait for i9? From what i've seen so far, the i9 benchmarks don't look that impressive next to i7's, having 6 physical cores vs four of core i7 not making me feel optimistic about Gulftown judging on these benches..... http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-10698-vi...-Benchmark.html http://www.siliconmadness.com/2009/08/core...benchmarks.html I'm not 100% sure these are legit.....