# Gulftown Product Name and Tentative Price Surfaces



## btarunr (Dec 14, 2009)

Contrary to older reports, Intel will stick to the Core i7 brand identifier to sell its first consumer (client) six-core processor based on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed "Gulftown". The first offering of these socket LGA-1366 processors, is the Core i7 980X Extreme Edition. Its positioning and pricing shows that Intel will replace its current flagship desktop processor, the Core i7 975 Extreme Edition with it, and at the very same price-point of US $999 (in 1000 unit tray quantities). 

A future price list also shows that the Core i7 980X Extreme Edition is slated for March 2010. A month ahead of its launch, Intel will introduce the Core i7 930, which succeeds the Core i7 920 at its price-point of $284. The Gulftown core will be manufactured on Intel's brand new 32 nm HKMG process, it features 6 processing cores with 12 threads (HyperThreading Technology), triple-channel DDR3 memory with its integrated memory controller, 6.4 GT/s QPI link to the Intel X58 Express chipset, 12 MB of L3 cache, compatibility to platforms that support the Core i7 9xx processors, and 130W TDP. The Core i7 980X Extreme Edition comes with a clock speed of 3.33 GHz, The Core i7 930 on the other hand, is a quad-core processor which runs at 2.80 GHz.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## afw (Dec 14, 2009)

wow ..great ... 

i see a new c2q in line (jan release ?) ... q9500 ... specs are similar to q9505 .... hmm... whats the difference then ?


----------



## Roph (Dec 14, 2009)

Possibly lower power for the 9500. And 130W


----------



## laszlo (Dec 14, 2009)

this is what i call a monster desktop cpu;without competition they'll keep the high price till we see the amd response;anyway this Hi+K metal gate  transistor seems to have small leakage if they managed to keep the tdp at 130w


----------



## Lionheart (Dec 14, 2009)

Damn, i was hoping the 930 was a six core, not like I need it but want it like many other enthusiasts


----------



## btarunr (Dec 14, 2009)

laszlo said:


> this is what i call a monster desktop cpu;without competition they'll keep the high price till we see the amd response;anyway this Hi+K metal gate  transistor seems to have small leakage if they managed to keep the tdp at 130w



Uh..even with competition, Intel sold $1000 processors (Pentium Extreme Edition), AMD sold $1000 processors when it was really competitive too. So competition doesn't have much of a role to play. We should be grateful Intel isn't pricing this $1500.


----------



## afw (Dec 14, 2009)

Roph said:


> Possibly lower power for the 9500. And 130W



nope ... its 95W TDP like its siblings (q9550/9505) ...  but it has some less features compared  to them ... like intel VT(virtualization) and intel-TXT(trusted-execution)...

found this article based on fudzilla: http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/intel-to-release-core-2-quad-q9500/15615.html


----------



## gumpty (Dec 14, 2009)

Is the i7 930 made on the 32nm process as well? It'd be sweet to see it at a lower power.

95W TDP would be nice.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Uh..even with competition, Intel sold $1000 processors (Pentium Extreme Edition), AMD sold $1000 processors when it was really competitive too. So competition doesn't have much of a role to play. We should be grateful Intel isn't pricing this $1500.




you're right till a point;as current cpu pricing adopted from amd their 6 core won't be more than 500$ ;back on 1000 or 1500 is the same for me ... i can't afford it...   my next cpu will be a max 300$ one no matter if is intel or amd with the best price/perf. ratio


----------



## Wile E (Dec 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Uh..even with competition, Intel sold $1000 processors (Pentium Extreme Edition), AMD sold $1000 processors when it was really competitive too. So competition doesn't have much of a role to play. We should be grateful Intel isn't pricing this $1500.



Agreed. I would've paid the $1500, even if they did, tho. This *IS* my next cpu. I doubt seriously AMD will offer a 6 core at the average person's budget, so it all becomes high-end pricing anyway.


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 14, 2009)

The thing I would love to see most is lower pricing on the 9550s the 65watt deal. That would be great for a lower power pc, I am kind of wanting to go that route.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 14, 2009)

Wow 284 for the i7 930, nice.


----------



## Weer (Dec 14, 2009)

I've been waiting for i9 for 6 months!

1,000$?!

Fuck that. I'm getting Dual-930's. Heck, I could get Quad 930's for around the same price.


----------



## DarkEgo (Dec 14, 2009)

Weer said:


> I've been waiting for i9 for 6 months!
> 
> 1,000$?!
> 
> Fuck that. I'm getting Dual-930's. Heck, I could get Quad 930's for around the same price.



It was always going to be $1000 or more... We have known that for months, Intel stated that there was only going to be EE models. But there is going to be Xeon 6 core 12 thread in the Sub $500 range I beleive.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 14, 2009)

Weer said:


> I've been waiting for i9 for 6 months!
> 
> 1,000$?!
> 
> Fuck that. I'm getting Dual-930's. Heck, I could get Quad 930's for around the same price.



Are there good duel 1366 board with good oc features?


----------



## EarlZ (Dec 14, 2009)

gumpty said:


> Is the i7 930 made on the 32nm process as well? It'd be sweet to see it at a lower power.
> 
> 95W TDP would be nice.



Im also wondering if its made from the same 32nm process as well


----------



## AltecV1 (Dec 14, 2009)

1000$ that is total BS


----------



## mlee49 (Dec 14, 2009)

I see 5.0Ghz easy with a 3.3Ghz chip.  Damn, 5.0Ghz on 6 cores pumping 12 threads!!  Dare I say sub 4s Wprime runs? 






Wile E said:


> Agreed. I would've paid the $1500, even if they did, tho. This *IS* my next cpu. I doubt seriously AMD will offer a 6 core at the average person's budget, so it all becomes high-end pricing anyway.



Coming from the only QX user here, I expect nothing else!


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 14, 2009)

the i930 is definitely the star of this release... if its a 32nm quad, we are potentially looking at a ~5ghz quad with HT .


----------



## Initialised (Dec 14, 2009)

So why are all the ES's 3.07GHz?


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 14, 2009)

Why is everyone so surprised it's £1000. 

How many other cpu's will be faster than this at 32nm ?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 14, 2009)

So it is an i7 and i9 does not exist...

Seeing how there is quad-cores on the i5 line up, it doesn't surprise me that Intel didn't create an i9 just for the hexacore processors.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Dec 14, 2009)

They're probably saving the i9 nomenclature for the octa-core version?


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> They're probably saving the i9 numenclature for the octa-core version?



Not likely.  Looking at how long the Gulftown will be top dog, it doesn't look like Intel is preparing to release an 8 core proc between now and 2011


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Dec 14, 2009)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> Damn, i was hoping the 930 was a six core, not like I need it but want it like many other enthusiasts



this statement says it all...that new quad is more than just about any of us could use...the 930 is definitely the thing I'd be interested in, very power efficient I'm sure yet has 4 cores and probably overclocks ridiculously, that 6 core beast is not only expensive I can't imagine it being able to overclock all that well beyond a certain point without uber cooling...there aren't even a lot of games/apps that can use 4 cores totally nevermind 6! lol.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 14, 2009)

i can feel it now... a 5.0+ghz quad system (HT off for extra MHZ)... some DDR3 ram... a couple of nvidia's fuzziest ferbi's in sli... and an old @ss spindle HDD bc i spent all my money on CPU and GFX.


----------



## Kantastic (Dec 14, 2009)

I want to see what AMD has to offer in 2010 before deciding whether or not I want to switch platforms. I just went from i7 to AM3 and don't want to do it again.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Dec 14, 2009)

from what I understand the 930 is just a filler to widen te gap in performance between lga1155 and lga1366 nothing else...


----------



## Disparia (Dec 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> Not likely.  Looking at how long the Gulftown will be top dog, it doesn't look like Intel is preparing to release an 8 core proc between now and 2011



Perhaps in that market segment. But if you don't want to wait...


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Perhaps in that market segment. But if you don't want to wait...
> 
> http://www.theburnerishot.com/photo/nehalem-ex-2p.jpg



I nobody can see your link, anyway I was speaking in fact.


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 14, 2009)

Does anybody know if they will release a 6 core for the 1156 platform?

Edit: 
Just saw Binges post. Any pics or news of the new i5?


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

I can't believe what a great processor the i7 920 has been.  For $300 it was the best value around.  You'd spend that much at least on a graphics card.  They should actually deliver them without the fans, so people will be forced to put a decent cooling system in.

The idiots at the computer store told us we making a mistake buying on.  lol

The i7 980 is $1000 to keep them out of the hands of people who don't need them.  

Question: 

1. Will you be able to set the QPI to 6.4T and automatically choose the memory speed with the 930 without having to alter the base clock like the 920?


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> I can't believe what a great processor the i7 920 has been.  For $300 it was the best value around.  You'd spend that much at least on a graphics card.  They should actually deliver them without the fans, so people will be forced to put a decent cooling system in.
> 
> The idiots at the computer store told us we making a mistake buying on.  lol
> 
> ...



Why would you have to change the base clock in a 920 to get higher memory speeds?  You only have to change the memory multiplier and uncore multiplier to get higher/lower speeds on the 920.  If you are talking about changing memory speeds to something odd like 1779 at stock speeds then you will have to change the BCLK, and you would have to change the BCLK on an EE chip as well.  The BCLK and memory speeds are linked.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> I nobody can see your link, anyway I was speaking in fact.
> 
> http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2009/December/General News/corei7_desktop_roadmap_2010.jpg



So was I 

*Above* the Extreme segment there will be 8-core 2P Xeons, which is what my img was representing.


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> So was I
> 
> *Above* the Extreme segment there will be 8-core 2P Xeons, which is what my img was representing.



Ahhhh sorry that just confused me.  It still means that there isn't for an "i9" at the moment, so I'm not too disappointed in the missing pic.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 14, 2009)

I'm wondering if there may be some 6 core Xeons for LGA 1156. Hmm...


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> Why would you have to change the base clock in a 920 to get higher memory speeds?  You only have to change the memory multiplier and uncore multiplier to get higher/lower speeds on the 920.  If you are talking about changing memory speeds to something odd like 1779 at stock speeds then you will have to change the BCLK, and you would have to change the BCLK on an EE chip as well.  The BCLK and memory speeds are linked.



Originaly the i7 920 was supposed to be locked so that it would only work with 1066 Mhz or under ram, because using faster ram causes the uncore (I take it) to heat up more.  Much like increasing the cpu multiplier is locked today.

The QPI was also supposed to be locked to only 4.8T, but we now see that it can be increased to the 965s 6.4T.

Whether or not this story was the result of an engineering sample being used by the press and then reported, or an attempt by Intel to make sure that spec ram was used which was followed by an outcry from memory manufacturers, I can't say.


----------



## Initialised (Dec 14, 2009)

Where are the i3s and the new Pentium on that chart?

You didn't get this from Fud or BSNews or Semi Articulate did you?

_EDIT-NVM Fud sourced cannot always be trusted, hence the inaccuracy and omissions._


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> Originaly the i7 920 was supposed to be locked so that it would only work with 1066 Mhz or under ram, because using faster ram causes the uncore (I take it) to heat up more.  Much like increasing the cpu multiplier is locked today.
> 
> The QPI was also supposed to be locked to only 4.8T, but we now see that it can be increased to the 965s 6.4T.
> 
> Whether or not this story was the result of an engineering sample being used by the press and then reported, or an attempt by Intel to make sure that spec ram was used which was followed by an outcry from memory manufacturers, I can't say.



The QPI is still locked at 4.8, and the 920 with locked memory speeds was a rumor.  Within weeks of the rumor being released it was squashed by leaked ES benchmarks.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> The QPI is still locked at 4.8, and the 920 with locked memory speeds was a rumor.  Within weeks of the rumor being released it was squashed by leaked ES benchmarks.



The QPI is not locked at 4.8T.


----------



## Weer (Dec 14, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Are there good duel 1366 board with good oc features?



You kidding? Of course there are.

6-core Xeon - HERE I COME!


----------



## Disparia (Dec 14, 2009)

^ Mind pointing out some to the rest of us?


----------



## Initialised (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> The QPI is not locked at 4.8T.



Most board vendors got around this with BIOS updates, technically it was multiplier locked rather than hard locked and part of the 920/940/950/960 OC potential comes from running lower QPI as standard compared to the higher QPI on 965/975s.

Any way, all the leaked data I've seen suggests a 3.07 CPU will exist, so either all the ES are set a couple of multipliers lower than retail or the source is wrong. Given the omission of i3/Pentium data I suggest the latter.


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> The QPI is not locked at 4.8T.



Prove it.  I can most assuredly prove you wrong.


----------



## Initialised (Dec 14, 2009)

I am also a little perplexed by RealTempGT reporting it as i9 and CPU-Z listing i7. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel stuck with i7 but this removes product differentiation. I'd like to see an EE with 3.33 and higher QPI as well as the 3.07GHz CPU at a more reasonable price. I suspect it is pre CES positioning so they can show something 'unexpected'.


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> Prove it.  I can most assuredly prove you wrong.



There's an option in my bios that allows me to change the QPI to 6.4. Not sure if it works but I will do some tests.


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 14, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> I'm wondering if there may be some 6 core Xeons for LGA 1156. Hmm...



Im wondering the same thing honestly.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

Before you do that, make sure your base clock is set back to the standard 133 Mhz.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

Please prove that I am wrong.  I humbly await your proof!


----------



## Jakl (Dec 14, 2009)

So the Only 32nm CPU is the 980X that will cost about $1000? 
Typical for Intel to have the only 32nm CPU and jack up the price :/

So will this be the only 32nm? 
And would love to see a Xeon aswell


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> Before you do that, make sure your base clock is set back to the standard 133 Mhz.





SummerDays said:


> Please prove that I am wrong.  I humbly await your proof!



It's simple.  That setting doesn't make your QPI run at 6.4GT/s, it is a multiplier!  Fancy eh?  If you were to set the QPI at what your bios calls 6.4GT/s then it wouldn't be actually running 6.4GT/s.  Check your CPU-Z if you don't believe me.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 14, 2009)

QPI rates are just measured based on data flow aren't they?


----------



## Binge (Dec 14, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> QPI rates are just measured based on data flow aren't they?



Yes, now I did something funny.  I set my QPI at 4.8GT/s in bios, and when I get into windows I have this...







To me that just confirms that the QPI setting is only a multiplier, and that multiplier (x36) doesn't change on a 920.  Even if you're at 133.  If you set the multiplier higher, but it won't actually go higher.  Overclocking the QPI is possible by increasing the BCLK on a 920, but you can't actually change it just by fiddling with the multiplier.

::EDIT:: Color me funny but you can actually set your QPI higher at 133, and only 133.  That's brilliant!  It does absolutely nothing since neither the cpu multiplier or bclk are high enough for it to be bottlenecked.  On EE chips you can actually set your QPI to (x48) with higher BCLKs and it will work whereas it won't on my 920.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 15, 2009)

Binge said:


> Yes, now I did something funny.  I set my QPI at 4.8GT/s in bios, and when I get into windows I have this...
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/091214/qpi.jpg
> 
> To me that just confirms that the QPI setting is only a multiplier, and that multiplier (x36) doesn't change on a 920.  Even if you're at 133.  If you set the multiplier higher, but it won't actually go higher.  Overclocking the QPI is possible by increasing the BCLK on a 920, but you can't actually change it just by fiddling with the multiplier.



Nice to know for my pending 930 purchase.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 15, 2009)

When you change the QPI to 6.4 in your motherboard bios (like on this Asus Rampage II 

Extreme) it changes the QPI clock frequency to 3.2 Ghz.

To achieve the actual throughput your system is going to have to be clocked faster than 2.66 Ghz. 

You can't change the multiplier to reach 4 Ghz.  So how are you going to do it?  



In any case, when Intel is making their i7 series chip, do they make them all exactly the same and then product bin them?


----------



## Binge (Dec 15, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> When you change the QPI to 6.4 in your motherboard bios (like on this Asus Rampage II
> 
> Extreme) it changes the QPI clock frequency to 3.2 Ghz.
> 
> ...



To a degree, yes.  Though there have been 920s out there that will chew the pants off of an EE chip until sub-0 CPU temperatures are introduced.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 15, 2009)

Anyways, after all that..

Setting the QPI results in a 3.2 Ghz speed.

Since they consider it bi-directional, they must get 6.4 GTransfers out of it.

Is that not the proof we were looking for?  (correct me if I'm wrong here someone) 

Which brings me back to my original question: will we be able to do that on the 930?!


----------



## Binge (Dec 15, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> Anyways, after all that..
> 
> Setting the QPI results in a 3.2 Ghz speed.
> 
> ...



Set the QPI multiplier to x48 at only a 133 BCLK?  You should have your answer, and like you said it doesn't matter since the power will not exist to utilize all of that bandwidth.


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 15, 2009)

>>  You should have your answer, and like you said it doesn't matter since the power will not exist to utilize all of that bandwidth

I don't have DDR3 2000 Ghz+ Ram sitting on my desk, though, which brings us back to being able to simply select the speed of the ram in use.  We're only talking about 24.6 GB/s though.

btw, if you're doing this (the guy with houses face whose name right now eludes me), the motherboard will default to a higher memory setting.  Make sure you reduce it to what your memory is rated for.   I reduced it in the bios to 1.51 volts so it wouldn't increase automatically to 1.65 volts or 1.8 volts.


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 15, 2009)

I've done it loads of times. I did a few memory tests and in fact at 2.66ghz it's actually slightly slower than at 4.8GT/s. However if I oc it then it will perform faster but I fear that my oc will be less due to the QPI being way to high.


----------



## Binge (Dec 15, 2009)

SummerDays said:


> >>  You should have your answer, and like you said it doesn't matter since the power will not exist to utilize all of that bandwidth
> 
> I don't have DDR3 2000 Ghz+ Ram sitting on my desk, though, which brings us back to being able to simply select the speed of the ram in use.  We're only talking about 24.6 GB/s though.
> 
> btw, if you're doing this (the guy with houses face whose name right now eludes me), the motherboard will default to a higher memory setting.  Make sure you reduce it to what your memory is rated for.   I reduced it in the bios to 1.51 volts so it wouldn't increase automatically to 1.65 volts or 1.8 volts.



You don't need 2GHz ram to use 6.4GT/s bandwidth, you need a cpu that's operating quickly enough to use the ram.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 15, 2009)

Weer said:


> You kidding? Of course there are.
> 
> 6-core Xeon - HERE I COME!




linksys?


----------



## SummerDays (Dec 15, 2009)

Binge said:


> You don't need 2GHz ram to use 6.4GT/s bandwidth, you need a cpu that's operating quickly enough to use the ram.



You do need fast memory.  We're talking about a fast link between a CPU and Memory.  

Obviously you need fast memory on the other side of the link in order take advantage of the link speed.

As well, if you're really going to overclock, you'll need the fast memory to do it!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 15, 2009)

damn only extreme version , any news for six core non extreme


----------



## Chad Boga (Dec 16, 2009)

Kantastic said:


> I want to see what AMD has to offer in 2010 before deciding whether or not I want to switch platforms. *I just went from i7 to AM3* and don't want to do it again.


Why did you do this?


----------



## Amok (Dec 16, 2009)

This looks interesting.






http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=31518&catid=2

I wonder how much is that X5650 or that L5640.... I will surely buy one of them.


----------



## clocker (Oct 1, 2010)

*5.0 GHz Overclocked Gultowns now on Amazon!*

Hey I saw someone post about 5.0 GHz Gulftowns so I googled and found them for sale at Amazon! Pretty cool!

Link was:

http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Lightning-Vapor-Cooled-i7-980X/dp/B0042R3A2W/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1285902732&sr=1-1-catcorr


----------

