# Intel to Bid Farewell to LGA1366 with Core i7-995X Extreme Edition



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2011)

Intel is preparing its next high-end/enthusiast desktop platform for release in Q4 2011. That platform will be driven by a new socket, the LGA2011, and the new Intel X79 Express chipset. Before that, Intel will give its 2-year old current enthusiast platform, the LGA1366 and X58 Express, a fitting farewell with a new high-end processor model, the Core i7-995X Extreme Edition. The i7-995X is a six-core processor based on the 32 nm "Gulftown" silicon. It features a default clock speed of 3.60 GHz (27 x 133 MHz), 3.86 GHz max Turbo, though the BClk multiplier is unlocked to help with overclocking. 

The six x86-64 cores are aided by Intel HyperThreading technology to give the OS a total of 12 logical CPUs (threads) to deal with. The processor features a triple-channel (192-bit wide) DDR3 memory controller, and connects to the X58 chipset over a 6.4 GT/s QuickPath Interconnect link. Intel will launch its new chip some time in Q3 2011, i7-995X is expected to be priced at $999 (in 1000-unit tray quantities), displacing the current SKU at this price, the Core i7-990X Extreme Edition. For now, a lucky few (read: "industry partners") have access to engineering samples.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Frick (Apr 4, 2011)

Wait, why would anyone buy this? The people that would be interested probably have the 980x already and theres no point in investing in the platform with that kind of money any more. IMO.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 4, 2011)

Bta said:
			
		

> it is expected to be priced at $999



Breaking news : Kreij won't be getting one of these.

Nice CPU, though.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Apr 4, 2011)

So the 1366 socket is EOL.  Didn't we have that discussion last year


----------



## _JP_ (Apr 4, 2011)

In this economy, this is almost insulting. But I'm sure someone will buy it, even being for an EOL socket.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 4, 2011)

Oh come on!

What is the use in having it "turbo" to 3.86ghz from 3.60ghz. 

Nice chip but it should at least turbo to 4.25ghz or something.... specially for $1000 bucks


----------



## newfellow (Apr 4, 2011)

Are you people insane?

LGA1366 is no where near EOL it's the only platform to buy.

SB is hoax crap Ivy Bridge leaked data indicates they do not intent to offer us even 10% of quality of LGA1366 and AMD can't get their stuff straight. Anyone telling that LGA1366 is 'dead' is either totally unaware of current market situation or technology build in. Intel is currently making biggest mistakes of their lives by restricting people who kept them alive and they will pay really deep price for doing so no matter what kind of crap they offer to us it's too far to be considered as profitable purchase to anyone.

So, I'd look really damn carefully what the situation really is before considering to say platform has no future, lol, since this platform will be more alive when Ivy Bridge is dead.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Apr 4, 2011)

bubhye


----------



## Arrakis9 (Apr 4, 2011)

OneCool said:


> Oh come on!
> 
> What is the use in having it "turbo" to 3.86ghz from 3.60ghz.
> 
> Nice chip but it should at least turbo to 4.25ghz or something.... specially for $1000 bucks



it wouldn't be able to stay in its power spec' at that speed (130w), theres only so much efficiency you can squeeze out of it. at 4.2 it starts to nom on more and more power, when i had my 970 up at that speed it was reporting 140~145w on the socket


----------



## Over_Lord (Apr 4, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Breaking news : Kreij won't be getting one of these.
> 
> Nice CPU, though.



Hmm, 3.6GHz, 6 core 12 thread, 130W TDP, 999$

Something tells me Intel's upcoming LGA 2011 will leave even this in the dust


----------



## Dave65 (Apr 4, 2011)

newfellow said:


> Are you people insane?
> 
> LGA1366 is no where near EOL it's the only platform to buy.
> 
> ...



Your kidding right?
Id take SB over this any day...


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 4, 2011)

newfellow said:


> Are you people insane?
> 
> LGA1366 is no where near EOL it's the only platform to buy.
> 
> ...



I would like to know what you have been smoking, so that I can avoid them. Sandy Bridge beats 4c/8t 9xx processors in just about every front, and no body in their right mind will get the 6c/12t processors for gaming and general usage. Only people getting the 6c/8t are the people who needs the top of the range rigs, and frankly we shouldn't consider them to be your average user. If you come with the 16PCIe lanes only argument, I am happy to point out that there are P/H/Z68 motherboards which support more more 32x lanes. I agree that AMD is in a rather bad position right now, but even then for many of us their low end Athlon II x4/x3 is a viable budget gaming rig.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 4, 2011)

Arrakis+9 said:


> it wouldn't be able to stay in its power spec' at that speed (130w), theres only so much efficiency you can squeeze out of it. at 4.2 it starts to nom on more and more power, when i had my 970 up at that speed it was reporting 140~145w on the socket



but not all of the cores are "turbo" just 2 (maybe 3) so I dont see how it cant stay in spec with that.Not including these are cherry cores unlocked to be able to do that sort of thing.


----------



## newfellow (Apr 4, 2011)

Wouldn't currently take SB CPUs even, if they would be paying them to me. They are security risk and totally locked down hardware which has no use for future market. LGA1366 is the only solution. as for argument of "no body in their right mind will get the 6c/12t processors" <- I would pay twice the price to get this system than any 4c system even while only TRUE solution is 6c/6t or 8c/8t system which only exists as XEON and those are not capable of speed. E7-8837 is blocked to embedded not sold out and even that is locked which would of been only true core to come out from intel next week.

As for PCIe lanes check again. only thing you will find is 24 lanes max until Q4/2011 and even new is restricted to 32lanes split with 1x and that is not even near LGA1366 40 lanes.


----------



## Spectrum (Apr 4, 2011)

newfellow said:


> Are you people insane?
> 
> LGA1366 is no where near EOL it's the only platform to buy.
> 
> ...


troll is a troll it seems! 
by the way to give you a rough idea of processor performance... www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

look at the 2600k... for 328 dollars that's damn fine performance... so don't say sandy bridge is a "hoax".

and also... when new technologies are developed, people tend to buy the newer technologies because they are better.
Eventually, the 1366 platform will die, with all the 1366 processor owners moving to 2011 or amd's offerings. 

And of course, just in case you don't understand why newer things are better, I shall try to explain. As technology progesses, manufacturing processes get smaller, putting out the same performance with less heat output and power required. So, with less heat output and less power required... you can aim for same heat and power draw as the last generation of processors with higher performance. 







Enough replying to a troll... 
Bye-Bye LGA1366, I hope you aren't condemned to serve an eternity in the firey chasms of hell with all the i-Pods and i-Pads.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 4, 2011)

newfellow said:


> Wouldn't currently take SB CPUs even, if they would be paying them to me. They are security risk and totally locked down hardware which has no use for future market. LGA1366 is the only solution. as for argument of "no body in their right mind will get the 6c/12t processors" <- I would pay twice the price to get this system than any 4c system even while only TRUE solution is 6c/6t or 8c/8t system which only exists as XEON and those are not capable of speed. E7-8837 is blocked to embedded not sold out and even that is locked which would of been only true core to come out from intel next week.
> 
> As for PCIe lanes check again. only thing you will find is 24 lanes max until Q4/2011 and even new is restricted to 32lanes split with 1x and that is not even near LGA1366 40 lanes.



Ah, you are one of the paranoid people. If you are concerned about the remote killswitch, that automatically puts you firmly in the "not your average user" camp, because most of us will not care so much about it. Don't see things from your eyes and complain that all other people are insane, sounds just like people enjoying Justin Bieber and High School Musical (I kid ) 

And I wonder why this board can afford to pump out 32 lanes, marketing misinformation, perhaps? GIGABYTE GA-P67A-UD7-B3 LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6G...

I realised I haven't said anything about the 1366 dying  I think the 1366 has served us well, and its time to move on. Much like the 775. Hope it will forever be remembered as a legendary socket, on par with the 775.


----------



## Spectrum (Apr 4, 2011)

"They are security risk" 
lol? 
If you can find any SB processors that have actually caused a security risk... please post here.
Just to question are you one of those people who thinks something is the best because it costs the most?


----------



## mtosev (Apr 4, 2011)

Hehe  in September 2010 i bought LGA1366 and already its going way. Got to love technology. Now I can start thinking about buying a new socket
BTW when is PCI-E 3.0 coming out?


----------



## cheesy999 (Apr 4, 2011)

mtosev said:


> BTW when is PCI-E 3.0 coming out?



according to wikipedia


> PCI Express 3.0 Base specification revision 3.0 was made available in November 2010,



so its just waiting for a chipset to include it really


----------



## newfellow (Apr 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Ah, you are one of the paranoid people. If you are concerned about the remote killswitch, that automatically puts you firmly in the "not your average user" camp, because most of us will not care so much about it. Don't see things from your eyes and complain that all other people are insane, sounds just like people enjoying Justin Bieber and High School Musical (I kid )
> 
> And I wonder why this board can afford to pump out 32 lanes, marketing misinformation, perhaps? GIGABYTE GA-P67A-UD7-B3 LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6G...
> 
> I realised I haven't said anything about the 1366 dying  I think the 1366 has served us well, and its time to move on. Much like the 775. Hope it will forever be remembered as a legendary socket, on par with the 775.



I am not concern about Anti-theft 3.0, heh, it is a flop and so will be the "DRM" these will be broken really fast and that is when the fun begins. Hardwired hardware directly online. This is what we get when we sum up heavy investors and someone willing to give them a leash, couple decent russian hackers and a japanese bootlegger wanting faster access I can't even imaging what it will do with hands of someone intelligent enough to use it for purpose. 



			
				"Quoted out said:
			
		

> On that gigabyte board. Yes, marketing is misinformative. They "cannot" produce 16x 16x board with any of the crap currently on market. I never said I think like general Average Joe buying hardware. People may think that new is new, but it's old crap sold out on new box with half the quality.



Looks like I am incorrect on Gigabyte effort to bring new seems it's controlled not internally this specific board lanes. 3rd party solution. Really good find there.



Spectrum said:


> "They are security risk"
> lol?
> If you can find any SB processors that have actually caused a security risk... please post here.
> Just to question are you one of those people who thinks something is the best because it costs the most?



I actually already could post prove of concept of hacking Sandy Bridge, but I think you can google them yourself. Not everything is told on PR crap and when these news hit to mainline internet perhaps then people will open their eyes.

Actually as for cost I am one of those who believes that what we have now costs 10 times more than it should. They don't pay for the chips we do and these corporations are nagging and yet swimming in a cash.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 4, 2011)

ooo look! a shiny new CPU to play all your console ports on


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> ooo look! a shiny new CPU to play all your console ports on



Shogun 2, Civ 5, Starcraft II says hello


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Shogun 2, Civ 5, Starcraft II says hello



you dont need this new cpu to play any of those games.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you dont need this new cpu to play any of those games.



Since when did TPU care about need?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Since when did TPU care about need?



im not going to get into a debate about what people need. im talking about what games require in order to play them. and they do not require this kind of horsepower. a fast dual core with a $200 gpu work just fine for almost all of the games out there these days. the hardware is far out-pacing software. we have seen this trend in the past couple of years with games being the best indicator.


----------



## erocker (Apr 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Since when did TPU care about need?



Since when are we all one collective mind?


----------



## mlee49 (Apr 4, 2011)

Audios X58 platform, you'll still be strong throughout 2011 and probably hang around for another year or two.

My 970 will keep me going through 2012 and probably give me some funds to begin another build then.

Wonder if the new chips will use some of the new technologies SB acquired(ie Intel AVX: 
http://software.intel.com/en-us/avx/


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 4, 2011)

erocker said:


> Since when are we all one collective mind?



I think we are getting a bit off topic here, but the gist is that I think there will be games which can potentially benefit from the 995x to counter Easy's sarcasm, and somehow it morphed to this. Still, a lot of TPU users have rigs more powerful than they need, hence the over generalisation.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> ooo look! a shiny new CPU to play all your console ports on



Or chase benchmark records on.


----------



## Undead46 (Apr 4, 2011)

Anybody else notice that ridiculous VCore in that image?


----------



## Taskforce (Apr 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> im not going to get into a debate about what people need. im talking about what games require in order to play them. and they do not require this kind of horsepower. a fast dual core with a $200 gpu work just fine for almost all of the games out there these days. the hardware is far out-pacing software. we have seen this trend in the past couple of years with games being the best indicator.



+1 games were the only thing pushing people to upgrade, and right now software looks really dated, lazy ass developers blame piratcy, but steam sales prove them wrong, consoles are holding us back though, wouldn't jump on a new platform until next gen consoles arrive, which will probably be Q4 2012, by then i can bet we'll see faster processor than 2011 along with GPUs.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Or chase benchmark records on.



im not knocking people for overclocking and benching and buying hardware they don't need to play games with. ive always advocated for people doing whatever the hell they want with their time. but we continue to see hardware manufacturers release more powerful chips that desktop users have no real world use for yet.


----------



## Enmity (Apr 4, 2011)

Newfellow, are you twl from guru3d? 
Anyway, x58 has been great with its tweakability and downright brute force but its time to move on and hopefully improve with the new socket and chipset


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 4, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> In this economy, this is almost insulting. But I'm sure someone will buy it, even being for an EOL socket.



I guess you can say the same thing about the GTX 590 and AMD 6990 right?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> im not going to get into a debate about what people need. im talking about what games require in order to play them. and they do not require this kind of horsepower. a fast dual core with a $200 gpu work just fine for almost all of the games out there these days. the hardware is far out-pacing software. we have seen this trend in the past couple of years with games being the best indicator.



This is becoming less and less true though. Crysis 2 runs almost twice as fast on a quad vs a dual core.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 5, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is becoming less and less true though. Crysis 2 runs almost twice as fast on a quad vs a dual core.



people who want to play high end games like crysis 2 on high settings are not desktop users, they are gamers. since most sales of intel and amd chips are from desktop users i can't really imagine a need for even more powerful next gen hardware for desktop users. furthermore, low power chips sales are doing incredibly well thanks to the mobile movement. these chips can run all sorts of desktop software with ease. so other than for the pure sake of making technological improvements, i dont see any reason intel and amd should continue to see sales growth in this area. unless of course server sales continue to climb as cloud based technology takes off. but that would not come close to offsetting the drop in mid to powerful desktop processor sales.


----------



## michaeltyson (Apr 5, 2011)

cyanora


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 5, 2011)

Go LGA 775 Q6600!!  If anyone want's you can send me one of these I will give you a Thank You card.


----------



## ..'Ant'.. (Apr 5, 2011)

I guess its time to get rid of my LGA1366 setup then.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 5, 2011)

I think you guys should just start throwing all that socket 1366 shit in the trash!!














Im not to proud to jump in a dumpster for it


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 5, 2011)

What trolls we have on here lately.

I'll believe it... when it is gone; and, all the better, if it does.
If the prices comes down some because of it's demise, I'll pick one up.
Or, one it siblings.
Why?  Because, I may want to and can.

It is not all about the latest and greatest and who can bench more or get the highest frame rate at the highest settings...  To me it is about the hobby, the enjoyment, and knowledge gained.

I still listen to vinyl, use tubes, and write on paper.  Why, I enjoy it!


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 5, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> This is becoming less and less true though. Crysis 2 runs almost twice as fast on a quad vs a dual core.



Actually he is right. You don't need a high end system to game well, a decent dual core with a decent GPU and you are set. Its not about what is faster, that's is the point to his comment. I play crysis just fine at 1280x1024 with my celeron e3300/5750, even tho i plan to upgrade to a quad core. But nothing is wrong with dual cores.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 5, 2011)

Another socket?  omg intel, i feel bad for intel users these past few yrs, whats that now? 4 different sockets in the space of what 2.5yrs and none can interchange with another? :shadedshu

I have a m8 who wants to move to an i7 from his 775 system and he is also looking at the older 1366 over the 2600K, he just doesn't like the chip with on board GPU, so i guess this turns a few off, and other things ive heard, some sort of security feature built in?

Anyway thats one very fast CPU and expensive, cost more then my entire rebuild.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Apr 5, 2011)

newfellow said:


> Are you people insane?
> 
> LGA1366 is no where near EOL it's the only platform to buy.
> 
> ...



What the hell are you talking about? A beastly P67 setup craps all over an X58 Gulftown setup in 90% of everything. You need a reality check. 1366 will live on, only because of frugle upgraders. People who like new technology will jump on and enjoy how cheap it is to build. Look how cheap a LGA1155 setup is compared to LGA1366, now compare results. How is LGA1366 going to live up to LGA2011 when LGA1155 already makes it inferior?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 5, 2011)

u2konline said:


> Actually he is right. You don't need a high end system to game well, a decent dual core with a decent GPU and you are set. Its not about what is faster, that's is the point to his comment. I play crysis just fine at 1280x1024 with my celeron e3300/5750, even tho i plan to upgrade to a quad core. But nothing is wrong with dual cores.



"less and less true" is somewhat different from "not true"

I don't really get it. For the price of that chip you could just go to a 2011 system. Seems this is for the hardware enthusiast too lazy to change out their motherboard.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Apr 5, 2011)

oh thank god 

now that i will drop the i7 920 to something more affordable


----------



## Over_Lord (Apr 5, 2011)

Dave65 said:


> Your kidding right?
> Id take SB over this any day...



umm, LGA 1366 has 6 cores, SB has 4 only and LGA 1055 will get 4 cores only even with 22nm update. this is more like a downgrade


----------



## chuchnit (Apr 5, 2011)

You guys do realize that the screenshot in this news post is from member over at xs. It was posted shortly before the launch of the 990x. I think that he is an employee of intel and the screenshot was promptly deleted by him shortly after it was posted. That's the only forum I that I visit that he posts on though. For all I know they played with the device ID in the lab.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 5, 2011)

thunderising said:


> umm, LGA 1366 has 6 cores, SB has 4 only and LGA 1055 will get 4 cores only even with 22nm update. this is more like a downgrade



Yeah, if it was just about core count. Sandy with it's 4 cores still beats a 1366 6 core more often than not. And that's stock speeds. Factor in the higher 24/7 clock and it looks even better for SB... then add that you can get a 2600k and board for the price of a 1366 6 core and it becomes no contest. 1366 is not something you should buy into unless you exclusively use those few apps that prefer more than 4 cores.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> im not knocking people for overclocking and benching and buying hardware they don't need to play games with. ive always advocated for people doing whatever the hell they want with their time. but we continue to see hardware manufacturers release more powerful chips that desktop users have no real world use for yet.



Well, with an unlocked BClk multiplier, Intel is obviously not intending the Extreme Edition chips to crunch spreadsheets or run console ports. It's intended primarily for overclocking and benching. 

For the i7-995X's target audience, benchmarks is a real world use of the product.


----------



## Maban (Apr 5, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Well, with an unlocked BClk multiplier, Intel is obviously not intending the Extreme Edition chips to crunch spreadsheets or run console ports. It's intended primarily for overclocking and benching.
> 
> For the i7-995X's target audience, benchmarks is a real world use of the product.



Well put.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 5, 2011)

I can't hardly believe anyone in their right mind would buy this proc, I mean, sure it's gonna be the fastest CPU around and everything, but as I said before, LGA1366 is a dead end for all means and purposes, unless you consider a $999+ CPU an "upgrade" 

With SB systems offering tons of performance at an affordable price, and Ivy Bridge and Bulldozer just around the corner, I just see no point in investing so much money in a dead platform, extreme benching or not...


----------



## Frizz (Apr 5, 2011)

Ouch that is quite expensive, I was assuming they'd instead release more affordable solutions to keep the platform going, but then again it is a hexacore proc.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 5, 2011)

I have really enjoyed the LGA1366 socket and look forward to the LGA2011 socket
Moving from an E8500 to a i7 920 was incredible

On topic, as others have said "this is an enthusiast" CPU. It is not meant for mainstream (or even most enthusiasts) and it will sell to those that want to push this CPU as far as it will go!


----------



## Pestilence (Apr 5, 2011)

Things like this make me wonder if Intel's going to price 2011 processors at 999.99

Btw - Sandy Bridge > Gulftown


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 5, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Well, with an unlocked BClk multiplier, Intel is obviously not intending the Extreme Edition chips to crunch spreadsheets or run console ports. It's intended primarily for overclocking and benching.
> 
> For the i7-995X's target audience, benchmarks is a real world use of the product.



of course it is. that is not my point. my point is that hardware continues to outstretch the needs of almost all desktop users. even in intensive desktop applications like final cut pro you really are not seeing any value in upgrading to the new architecture when a fast quad s775 proc will do the job just as fast because the software simply gets no really benefit from it. one can hardly argue that upgrading from a 4 year old quad proc to this new architecture is worth the cost right now. best to keep what you have until there is a REAL need for more horsepower.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> of course it is. that is not my point. my point is that hardware continues to outstretch the needs of almost all desktop users. even in intensive desktop applications like final cut pro you really are not seeing any value in upgrading to the new architecture when a fast quad s775 proc will do the job just as fast because the software simply gets no really benefit from it. one can hardly argue that upgrading from a 4 year old quad proc to this new architecture is worth the cost right now. best to keep what you have until there is a REAL need for more horsepower.



"There is a REAL need for more horsepower" as far as benchmarks, and benchmark-based leaderboards go. It was always the case, and it's always going to be the case. For that i7-995X serves its purpose perfectly. Intel is smart enough not to release products that don't find a target audience. 

You can play minesweeper or edit/encode your "how I smashed the record" video when you're not benchmarking, with the i7-995X.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Apr 5, 2011)

chuchnit said:


> You guys do realize that the screenshot in this news post is from member over at xs. It was posted shortly before the launch of the 990x. I think that he is an employee of intel and the screenshot was promptly deleted by him shortly after it was posted. That's the only forum I that I visit that he posts on though. For all I know they played with the device ID in the lab.



Yeah and another thing, the guys a tool.. Just bashes anything that isn't intel (even with proof he stil like LIES!! Rofl.


Anyway dead platform and overprice cpu woo! N tnx


(with the exttreme editions where priced like amd blacks.. Much nicer and would make these sell easy


----------



## AhokZYashA (Apr 5, 2011)

still rocking a E7400 here, and not going to touch the 1366 no matter what..

i much prefer SB, runs cooler, but small overclock headroom for the non K ver..


and for that i7 995X, it have no use unless its cooled by LN2


----------



## X1REME (Apr 5, 2011)

All my m8s are still waiting on bulldozer 32nm (currently on LG775), will see what the price is & go from there.


----------



## _JP_ (Apr 5, 2011)

AhokZYashA said:


> still rocking a E7400 here


Me too (not OC'ed). I just need a better motherboard to play like the big-boys (at/over 60fps).


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 5, 2011)

btarunr said:


> "There is a REAL need for more horsepower" as far as benchmarks, and benchmark-based leaderboards go. It was always the case, and it's always going to be the case. For that i7-995X serves its purpose perfectly. Intel is smart enough not to release products that don't find a target audience.
> 
> You can play minesweeper or edit/encode your "how I smashed the record" video when you're not benchmarking, with the i7-995X.



show me where i disagreed with you?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 5, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> show me where i disagreed with you?



Read your own posts in this thread. You argued that this CPU is overkill for any "real world use", and tried to separate this CPU's obvious target purpose (overclocking/benchmarking) from that set of "real world uses", while I argued that benchmarking is a "real world use" of this product, and it's serving its purpose.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 6, 2011)

Went from a pentium 4  with hyperthreading and an 5670 . To an i7 860 with crossfired 6870s.  Hopng this new platform and some higher end cards have the same effect


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 6, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Read your own posts in this thread. You argued that this CPU is overkill for any "real world use", and tried to separate this CPU's obvious target purpose (overclocking/benchmarking) from that set of "real world uses", while I argued that benchmarking is a "real world use" of this product, and it's serving its purpose.



im not talking specifically about the new 1366 cpu. im talking in general about manufacturing powerful new chip architectures that have no real world use in terms of performance gain. if you think benchmarking is a real world use then obviously you would say that every cpu ever made has some sort of real world use. that's fine but it is not the point i am making. you think intel is gonna make billions of dollars next year because of all the people who buy their chips to benchmark them?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 6, 2011)

Encoding benefits from these faster cpus, and that is a real world use, and a fairly common one at that.

But that's not the real reason Intel makes these chips. Just like any top end component, they won't sell a whole lot, but they will draw more attention to the entire lineup. AKA: Advertising. "We have the fastest, therefore we are better."


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Encoding benefits from these faster cpus



of course it does. but that is not my point. hardware continues to out pace software. the average (and by average i mean the bread and butter for chip makers) desktop user will see no added benefit for his or her dollar by upgrading to these new powerful chips. why do you think most people still run P4 systems? because on windows xp they are still smoking fast for web browsing, editing pictures and sending emails and streaming netflix or hulu. these users if they play games tend to own consoles (something game developers certainly know about.) im questioning whether or not intel is going to push harder in the future toward mobile chips than these powerful desktop ones.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 6, 2011)

But standard users have absolutely nothing to do with these chips. I don't understand why you even brought it up, tbh. Of course they won't benefit, so they don't buy these. That has nothing to do with whether a market for them exists or not.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> But standard users have absolutely nothing to do with these chips. I don't understand why you even brought it up, tbh. Of course they won't benefit, so they don't buy these. That has nothing to do with whether a market for them exists or not.



im talking about the new architectures being released, not the 1366 chip.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 6, 2011)

I are confuse. What has that got to do with this release? I must have missed something in the thread.

At any rate, most average users I know upgrade every 3 years or so. So the market must be there, or else they wouldn't be selling them. I don't see the problem with hardware becoming more powerful.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I are confuse. What has that got to do with this release? I must have missed something in the thread.
> 
> At any rate, most average users I know upgrade every 3 years or so. So the market must be there, or else they wouldn't be selling them. I don't see the problem with hardware becoming more powerful.



oh me neither. i certainly welcome the technological advances. but this new architecture just leaves me scratching my head. at what point will we see software catch up? with everyone going mobile the focus seems to be on lean and mean operating systems on low power smart phones which can do just about anything your typical desktop can. are power users like ourselves going to have to pay even higher prices in the future because of the limited demand?


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> at what point will we see software catch up?



I think we have reached the stage where everything is "fast enough". As a bad example, I compare it with cars. over the first 50 or so years of motorised cars, cars are built to go faster and faster. Yet over the last 20 years, there is no need for fast cars, as long as your car can do 100kph/60mph (pretty much any car nowadays can do that, only supercars of the old days can do this) you are good. Now we concentrate on fuel consumption (power consumption for computers) for the "average Joe" rig.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 6, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> I think we have reached the stage where everything is "fast enough". As a bad example, I compare it with cars. over the first 50 or so years of motorised cars, cars are built to go faster and faster. Yet over the last 20 years, there is no need for fast cars, as long as your car can do 100kph/60mph (pretty much any car nowadays can do that, only supercars of the old days can do this) you are good. Now we concentrate on fuel consumption (power consumption for computers) for the "average Joe" rig.



that's true. i wonder if us power users then will become like the super car buyers. that could get really expensive


----------



## BinaryMage (Apr 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> that's true. i wonder if us power users then will become like the super car buyers. that could get really expensive



One would hope not. But I don't think so. While not as much in the mainstream market, there are plenty of computing tasks (a-hem, CRUNCHING, a-hem) that use and need the increased CPU power. And more to the point, applications and games will continue to get more demanding. The limiting factor for application resource usage is hardware. Sure, your i7 2600k and SLId GTX 590s can run Black Ops at 100 FPS, but the computers of most of the people who buy Black Ops cannot. If the games/apps were so resource intensive that they needed a $2k machine just to run, very few people would buy them.
To conclude, in my opinion, more powerful computers and applications that use that power aren't going away anytime soon.


----------



## derwin75 (Jul 1, 2011)

*Re: Intel Core i7 995X*

I would not waste money on this Intel CPU. It would be wise to save up money for the Intel Sandy Bridge EX LGA 2011.


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 1, 2011)

Dont worry Derwin, I'll come back in 3 years and make fun of this cpu as well.


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 1, 2011)

derwin75 said:


> I would not waste money on this Intel CPU. It would be wise to save up money for the Intel Sandy Bridge EX LGA 2011.


Those that want to, will do it.
Also, very little is known about SB-E except some details, but relatively nothing regarding performance and how much difference it will have from Nehalem/Westmere.
There are better options, truth be said, and if there is a urgent need for hardware, go for what exists now.


----------



## Insanity (Jul 8, 2011)

Neat their going back to 8 cores so i can upgrade my intel core 2 extreme x9775 and mobo

then again i think my case might be OK for this


----------

