I ran into an old friend of mine who happens to work for Intel at an industry event last month. We were naturally talking about Intel when he pointed out that the company was doing very well. I agreed, but argued that Intel’s progress was being artificially limited by the fact that it wasn’t facing much competition at the high end.

It’s true. AMD’s entire desktop product line exists below $300, and we won’t see a real push for the high end crown until next year with Bulldozer. Until then, the real competition happens at lower (and arguably more interesting) price points where AMD gives you more cores for less, while Intel offers lower power consumption and better single threaded performance.

The ultra high end is still alive and well, despite the lack of competition in the market. Apple just announced its own dual-socket, 12-core monster that will begin shipping next month. Even Intel will tell you that it’s seeing more interest in the Core i7 980X than any previous Extreme Edition part. And the interest isn’t misplaced.


Click to Enlarge

As the first 6-core desktop CPU based on Intel’s 32nm Gulftown core, the Core i7 980X was the first Extreme Edition in years to offer more than just a clock speed advantage. You got more cores, a larger L3 cache and virtually the highest clock speeds Intel has to offer. If you run highly threaded workloads, you can’t do any better on the desktop today. Thanks to its turbo modes, you don’t even give up performance in lightly threaded apps either.

The 980X of course carried an extreme price tag at $999. With more competition at the high end we might’ve seen derivative parts offered at lower clock speeds and lower price points. But until AMD delivers Bulldozer the impetus just isn’t there. Instead what we’re left with is a slow moving waterfall.

Early next year (Q1) Intel will introduce the Core i7 990X, a clock bumped version of the 980X. Presumably the 990X will run at 3.46GHz by default, but have the ability to turbo up even higher. The roadmap calls for another clock bump in Q2 depending on what AMD does.

Below the 980X there’s only a single 6-core desktop part for at least the next 6 months: the Core i7 970.

Its unassuming name implies little more than just a faster Core i7, however its $885 (1000 unit quantities) pricetag says otherwise. While the rest of the desktop Core i7 line is made up of 45nm quad-core Bloomfield and Lynnfield processors, the Core i7 970 is a 32nm 6-core Gulftown.

Processor Core Clock Cores / Threads L3 Cache Max Turbo TDP Price
Intel Core i7 980X 3.33GHz 6 / 12 12MB 3.60GHz 130W $999
Intel Core i7 975 3.33GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.60GHz 130W $999
Intel Core i7 970 3.20GHz 6 / 12 12MB 3.46GHz 130W $885
Intel Core i7 960 3.20GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.46GHz 130W $562
Intel Core i7 930 2.80GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.06GHz 130W $284
Intel Core i7 880 3.06GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.73GHz 95W $583
Intel Core i7 875K 2.93GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.60GHz 95W $342
Intel Core i7 870 2.93GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.60GHz 95W $294
Intel Core i7 860 2.80GHz 4 / 8 8MB 3.46GHz 95W $284
Intel Core i5 760 2.80GHz 4 / 4 8MB 3.33GHz 95W $205
Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz 4 / 4 8MB 3.20GHz 95W $196
Intel Core i5 670 3.46GHz 2 / 4 4MB 3.73GHz 73W $284
Intel Core i5 661 3.33GHz 2 / 4 4MB 3.60GHz 87W $196
Intel Core i5 660 3.33GHz 2 / 4 4MB 3.60GHz 73W $196
Intel Core i5 650 3.20GHz 2 / 4 4MB 3.46GHz 73W $176
Intel Core i3 540 3.06GHz 2 / 4 4MB N/A 73W $133
Intel Core i3 530 2.93GHz 2 / 4 4MB N/A 73W $113
Intel Pentium G9650 2.80GHz 2 / 2 3MB N/A 73W $87

Like the 980X, the Core i7 970 has a 12MB L3 cache that’s shared by all six cores, all on a single 240mm2 die. The 1.17 billion transistor chip runs at a stock speed of 3.2GHz but can turbo up to 3.46GHz if two or fewer cores are active. With more than two active, and assuming no thermal or current limits are exceeded, the chip can run at 3.33GHz. For around $100 off the price of a 980X you’re not giving up much in terms of clock speed.

The uncore (everything outside of the CPU cores + L2 caches) also remains mostly unchanged. The 970 runs its uncore at 2.66GHz (identical to the 980X) but the QPI bus is stuck at 4.8GT/s vs. 6.4GT/s. The difference isn’t something that will appear in real world performance however.

CPU Codename Manufacturing Process Cores Transistor Count Die Size
Westmere 6C Gulftown 32nm 6 1.17B 240mm2
Nehalem 4C Bloomfield 45nm 4 731M 263mm2
Nehalem 4C Lynnfield 45nm 4 774M 296mm2
Westmere 2C Clarkdale 32nm 2 384M 81mm2
AMD Phenom II X6 Thuban 45nm 6 904M 346mm2
AMD Phenom II X4 Deneb 45nm 4 758M 258mm2

Overall expect to see very close to 980X performance for $100 less. You lose the unlocked multiplier, which may have some overclocking implications, but that’s about it.

The rest of the Gulftown enhancements still apply. We finally get uncore power gating and AES-NI. The former gives us power consumption equal to 45nm quad-core Bloomfield i7s, while the latter improves encryption performance. Both of which we’ve demonstrated in the past.

BIOS Support and The Test

Any X58 motherboard with Gulftown support should work with the 970. As was the case with the original 980X launch, you’ll almost definitely need an updated BIOS to make this work.

Even Intel’s own DX58SO motherboard using the BIOS that originally enabled 980X support needed an update to work with the Core i7 970. Unfortunately you need to do this update before you install the CPU so make sure your board is up to date.

We’ve added the Core i7 970 results to Bench, our benchmark database. The graphs that follow are a subset of those results to keep the article reasonably sized.

Motherboard: ASUS P7H57DV- EVO (Intel H57)
Intel DP55KG (Intel P55)
Intel DX58SO (Intel X58)
Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48)
Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P (AMD 790FX)
MSI 890FXA-GD70 (AMD 890FX)
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel)
AMD Catalyst 8.12
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Memory: Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Corsair DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20)
Video Card: eVGA GeForce GTX 280 (Vista 64)
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (Windows 7)
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 9.12 (Windows 7)
NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64)
NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32)
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Windows 7 x64
General, Imaging & Video Encoding Performance
POST A COMMENT

49 Comments

View All Comments

  • afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Both of which would suck huge donkey nuts, if you plan on using it at home. Unless you just happen to be rendering complex scenes. Which most aren't. You'll benefit more from the 980X or 970, for quick simple renderings, modeling, etc. Course, I'm going to assume that many ppl who buy these procs just want the best on the market and couldn't care less how it actually performs. Reply
  • mavizao2 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Well,

    For barely $950, you can get an Asus mobo with 2 CPU slots and 2 8-way magnycours 2.0ghz.

    That is...you can get 16 real cores, totalling 32 ghz AND the motherboard.

    Do you really think Intel can get even CLOSE to the performance yelded?
    Anything that uses more then 4 cores will probably use as many as it finds (encoding, crunching etc etc).
    So, guess what...no freaking way.

    Intel is only a better buy if you're some kind of rich gamer...even then, i suppose a regular core I7 overclocked will do better than a 6 core that can't overclock "as good", as the trend seems to be coding is stuck on using at most 4 cores.
    Reply
  • Accord99 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link

    Actually yes, even in highly multi-threaded situations the i7-970 will be comparable to 2x6128s. And for the plenty of things that can't use 16 threads effectively, then it won't even be close. Reply
  • bleucharm28 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    if i'm going to spend that much, i rather spend the extra $100 and buy 980X. Reply
  • tno - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    I think that's the point though. It's like Anand said, this is possibly an issue of binning. And before the haters keep on hating, let's consider what the sales numbers for these things are? EE's have never been sales leaders, they exist to show what will trickle down. Intel is so far head in their 32-nm node that they were able to get this thing out ahead of schedule and are probably working very hard to ramp up production at this node so that they can produce chips of this caliber at lower price points. I have the fullest expectation that within six months a nearly equivalent chip (minus AES and such a large L3) will be selling at the $400 price.

    What I want are features. I want Sandy Bridge to be a media and IO powerhouse, that can share graphics duties with a discrete GPU for huge power savings in the desktop realm. I want to be able to hear my freaking loud 4890 power all the way down when I'm watching a movie and then ramp up when I get my WoW on. I want 8 cores that will power down when not in use. I want IO integrated so that I don't have to slap a loud tiny fan over a Northbridge. And I want to build the whole system for less than $500 (plus that same 4890! ;) it does all I wanted). What do you think Anand? How far out am I from seeing my dream?
    Reply
  • Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    HD4890?
    Have you been living under a rock?

    It's HD5800 for you buddy.
    Reply
  • Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    When I've read the title of a more affordable 6 cores, I was like yay!!!
    Then when I saw the price...

    man this is like uber gay!
    Reply
  • boden - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    *with lisp* this is like SUPER HAPPY!!!!!! like wow, spaztastic, rad...
    /sarcasm
    Reply
  • CptTripps - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    I have been running the i7 920 since late late 2008, I am extremely happy that it still holds up so well and I see no reason to upgrade for at least another couple years. Reply
  • QChronoD - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Totally agree. The only benchmark on here that I care about is the x264 encoding one. But my OC's 920@3.6 looks to be only a few percent slower than the new 970.

    Personally I'd like to see a 1080p benchmark, but thats not a big deal.
    I do wish that you would add a highly overclocked chip to these benchmarks, like an old 920 @4.0 or something, so that us early adopters would be able to get an idea of how we still hold up to Intel's new hotness.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now