# Core i9 ''Gulftown'' Comes to Life



## btarunr (Jul 31, 2009)

Intel's posterboy processor for the 32 nm Westmere architecture, the six-core Gulftown is now living, breathing silicon. The company seems to have already dispatched samples of the chip. Gulftown is based on the LGA-1366 socket. Featuring 6 cores and 12 threads with HyperThreading enabled, it holds 12 MB of L3 cache to support the additional data load over the QuickPath Interconnect. 

A noted enthusiast has two Gulftown processors running in a dual-socket setup. This 12 core, 24 thread monstrosity uses 24 GB of DDR3 memory using 4 GB modules (perhaps 2 x 3 modules). The processors are running at 2.40 GHz (18 x 133 MHz). The machine was put through WPrime multi-threaded benchmark. It crunched WPrime 32M in a little over 6 seconds, and 1024M in 145.6 seconds. Going by older information, Gulftown should be implemented in a commercial product in Q1 2010, when Intel plans a host of other important product launches. When released as Core i9, the processor will target the premium enthusiast market.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 31, 2009)

no pricing yet?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 31, 2009)

Wicked! Wonder if it'll misplace the 975 from the 999$ position


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 31, 2009)

freaksavior said:


> no pricing yet?



At the least, 800$.


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 31, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> At the least, 800$.



i'll pass fow shaw then.

Im gonna turn my desktop into a htpc.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Jul 31, 2009)

im holding out for the 21x multi version. 4.5ghz with 6core/12threads will kill everything out there.


----------



## mtosev (Jul 31, 2009)

great stuff. 6 cores coming soon. i love you intel.


----------



## grunt_408 (Jul 31, 2009)

Very nice looking forward to seeing a few of them around on TPU


----------



## HammerON (Jul 31, 2009)

Crunching power


----------



## AltecV1 (Jul 31, 2009)

why not 8 core


----------



## erocker (Jul 31, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> why not 8 core



Because they'll make more money selling you a 6 core first.


----------



## toyo (Jul 31, 2009)

6 cores are already upon us as issued by AMD. Do we need a new Task Manager?


----------



## n-ster (Jul 31, 2009)

Will this bring w3520 and i7 920 prices down?


----------



## Sadasius (Jul 31, 2009)

I just may upgrade to this. Hmmmm


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Aug 1, 2009)

Found my next upgrade!


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 1, 2009)

n-ster said:


> Will this bring w3520 and i7 920 prices down?



thats what im hopeing for.. a nice cheap 920


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

Sadasius said:


> I just may upgrade to this. Hmmmm





A Cheese Danish said:


> Found my next upgrade!



if i start working again i am getting this as long as its under 1K



ShiBDiB said:


> thats what im hopeing for.. a nice cheap 920



remeber the 920,940 were discontinued


----------



## Sadasius (Aug 1, 2009)

Is this still classified as a i7 or a i9? CPU-Z there is saying it is a i7.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

Sadasius said:


> Is this still classified as a i7 or a i9? CPU-Z there is saying it is a i7.



i9 but its on x58 platform 

cpu-z hasnt been updated for i9


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Aug 1, 2009)

Sadasius said:


> Is this still classified as a i7 or a i9? CPU-Z there is saying it is a i7.



It should be the i9. its a 6 core proc. And according to Wikipedia (not very reliable but whatever) the price is listed 
as $999. Which I'm pretty sure it will be near.


----------



## BrooksyX (Aug 1, 2009)

Very Nice! 

Would love to get my hands on one of these!


----------



## mudkip (Aug 1, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> if i start working again i am getting this as long as its under 1K
> 
> 
> 
> remeber the 920,940 were discontinued



not true


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

mudkip said:


> not true



they werent?

there was a whole thread about intel saying they were not but the next day they said yes no more 920

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/05/28/intel-to-discontinue-core-i7-920-940-cpus/1


----------



## Weer (Aug 1, 2009)

Okay, a few words.

1.) Half the new claimed it was an Oct-core, and now the release this? It is really worth it? If it wasn't for 32nm, it would likely reach low-enough clocks to be just about as powerful as a Quad core.

2.) The price is 1000$? They've never had a completely new product exist only at the highest price segment. They know that no one buys Extreme models but reach people with little tech knowledge. They are going to release only the extreme version first, then we'll see some real models.. just like they are going to release the six-core version, and only later will we see a real eight-core CPU.

3.) Again, the rumors disappoint. I planned on buying an eight-core CPU alongside GTX 380. Now it's pushed forward to 2010. It wouldn't really bother me, but personally my computer is on its hind legs and I desperately want to upgrade.

Actually, according to Intel's road map, the only other Westmere processors (32nm shrink of Nehalem, i.e. This), are going to be Dual-core. So, they're have 150-300$ Dual-core 32nm Nehalem processors, and leave the high-end "Extreme"-only six-core up there. Meaning that either these Duals will be the new i3's, or i3 is going to have a very short lifespan. They couldn't possibly  have shrunk 45nm to 32nm just to make Dual-core processors, right? This is quite insane.

I want an affordable six-core Westmere, 500$ or less, in time for a Triple-SLi Dual-socket motherboard, also costing no more than 500$. Then I want GTX 380 to cost 500$ as well, and a 250$ 12GB six-dimm pack of stable RAM, and I'm happy. I'm the consumer.. I am supposed to be happy, right?


----------



## Nick89 (Aug 1, 2009)

freaksavior said:


> no pricing yet?



OVER 9000$.


----------



## method526 (Aug 1, 2009)

i predict it'll be like an easy bake oven in your cpu socket.


----------



## Sadasius (Aug 1, 2009)

method526 said:


> i predict it'll be like an easy bake oven in your cpu socket.



Then Pelt the sucker! Turn it into a nice frozen treat!


----------



## wolf (Aug 1, 2009)

well I gather its on socket 1366, but for the love of god it had better work on X58 and not need a NEW chipset too... plz no X68.... not yet 



method526 said:


> i predict it'll be like an easy bake oven in your cpu socket.



And how many cases have you witnessed or even heard of, of people popping i7's for lack of cooling?

The only commonality is that the stock cooler sucks, put just about anything else on it and your fine for stock, all they way up to 3.6-4.2ghz, depending on voltage required.

gotta tell you I haven't heard of one popping, and my i7 runs cool.

PS. 6 core/12 theads ....*drool*


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 1, 2009)

*twitches* 12 threads  f$ck thats going to be killer fast


----------



## method526 (Aug 1, 2009)

wolf said:


> well I gather its on socket 1366, but for the love of god it had better work on X58 and not need a NEW chipset too... plz no X68.... not yet
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you should ask yourself the same question as your avatar: why so serious?


----------



## wolf (Aug 1, 2009)

method526 said:


> you should ask yourself the same question as your avatar: why so serious?



just an opinion, thats all 

they can be hot yes, but not uncontrollable, they have to fit inside a tight thermal envelope for the power they pack.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 1, 2009)

i think 6 cores is stupid whats to say the couldnt have made an 8 core or 10 core or 12 core who decides how many cores they are going to slap together?

i think its getting stupid i liked it when you just bought a fast efficient cpu, like a Duron a budget enthusiasts dream this is like 'hahaha we have 6 cores now and some twit will buy it for £999 and then in a month it will drop by £100 and next year they will do the same with our 8 core even tho they said they where future proofing last year and needed a 6 core'

ALSO computing is changing to much i dont want cloud computing or Onlive whatever it is streaming service! i thought duals where a bit of a cheap trick tbh oh lets slap 2 core together for twice the power as a cheap and easy solution

they used to concentrate on making cpus more efficient at calculations, faster and consume less power now its just "lets see how many we can slap together because its faster and cheaper all we need to do is figure out how to make em smaller for now untill we hit the silicone barrier"


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 1, 2009)

Nice, but don't need it as a Gamer in general.

Don't have money either. So not interested.

Still trying to get a new video card, and by the time i can afford that it will be obsolete/considered low-end.

GG PC hardware.


----------



## hat (Aug 1, 2009)

I lol'd when I saw the cpu usage grids in task manager.

So is this a native hex core or what?

@cddude, pfft, I don't even need my Kuma as a gamer in general


----------



## Wile E (Aug 1, 2009)

toyo said:


> 6 cores are already upon us as issued by AMD. Do we need a new Task Manager?



Intel already has 6 core cpus out as well, just not on this platform.



MilkyWay said:


> i think 6 cores is stupid whats to say the couldnt have made an 8 core or 10 core or 12 core who decides how many cores they are going to slap together?
> 
> i think its getting stupid i liked it when you just bought a fast efficient cpu, like a Duron a budget enthusiasts dream this is like 'hahaha we have 6 cores now and some twit will buy it for £999 and then in a month it will drop by £100 and next year they will do the same with our 8 core even tho they said they where future proofing last year and needed a 6 core'
> 
> ...


Except that cpus continue to be faster and more efficient, even on the basis of a single core. Then we just get the added benefit of 6 of those more efficient cores in one package. Hell, the more of these cores they can slap on a single cpu, the better.

Also, as far as people buying these being "twits", what business is it of yours? How are they a twit for buying the fastest cpu their budget allows? I know I'm buying the fastest cpu out for $1500 or less when I get my tax return next March, regardless if it has 6, or 100 cores.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 1, 2009)

hat said:


> So is this a native hex core or what?


hexa-core


Too much bling for my budget and it would put my server out of work.


----------



## kid41212003 (Aug 1, 2009)

Probably cost ~$1000, this is not exactly worth it for me (or other i7 users), unless:

It's $300, faster than my i7 50%, and can run at the same OC clock as my i7.


----------



## tastegw (Aug 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Intel already has 6 core cpus out as well, just not on this platform.
> 
> Except that cpus continue to be faster and more efficient, even on the basis of a single core. Then we just get the added benefit of 6 of those more efficient cores in one package. Hell, the more of these cores they can slap on a single cpu, the better.
> 
> Also, as far as people buying these being "twits", what business is it of yours? How are they a twit for buying the fastest cpu their budget allows? I know I'm buying the fastest cpu out for $1500 or less when I get my tax return next March, regardless if it has 6, or 100 cores.



if you can, get me one of those 100 core cpus too  ill pay ya back


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 1, 2009)

next upgrade spotted game time.


----------



## Altered (Aug 1, 2009)

wolf said:


> well I gather its on socket 1366, but for the love of god it had better work on X58 and not need a NEW chipset too... plz no X68.... not yet



I read these 2 lines in the article. 



> With support for Socket LGA1366, Gulftown is based on 32nm technology, operating at 2.4GHz (18*133MHz), with 12MB of L3 cache.
> 
> Compatible with the X58 chipset



No matter what it will be out of my price range. I do hate the way companies milk us. 6 cores now 8 tomorrow.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> I don't paticulary care about that, it will be $1000 and aimed for the people who love flushing money down the shitter



I strongly disagree


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> I don't have mile deep pockets that's why lol.



Agreed.


----------



## Altered (Aug 1, 2009)

Have to remember some of us couldn't afford to buy a 920 right now if we got a divorce and were receiving child support.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> I don't have mile deep pockets that's why lol.



So if you did have the money would you get it?
 I would in a heartbeat


----------



## btarunr (Aug 1, 2009)

Sadasius said:


> Is this still classified as a i7 or a i9? CPU-Z there is saying it is a i7.



CPU-Z doesn't know what Gulftown is, and is assuming it to be another Core i7 model. The "Name" string is not read from the hardware.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> Finally someone with half a brain left.



so because some people cant afford it , and the ones that can  dont have a brain?

Its like saying people who buy ferraris dont have a brain because i cant afford it, which is nonsense

I will admire that person because i want to see what it can do and not bash on them because i cant afford it


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> That's not really what I was saying, $1000 on a CPU is just ridiculous because it won't be worth jack-shit 6 months later. Back on topic



Its been 7 months on the 920 and its still a monster 

now we can go back on topic


----------



## btarunr (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> That's not really what I was saying, $1000 on a CPU is just ridiculous because it won't be worth jack-shit 6 months later. Back on topic



The $100 caviar is (literally) shit 12 hours after eating it. But that's besides the point. If you want the best/most exclusive, you are made to pay the most. It's applicable with pretty-much everything.


----------



## dburn3 (Aug 1, 2009)

6 cores would be awesome if their was actually software to support it.


----------



## toyo (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> That's different, the i7 was aimed for gamers/enthusiasts (people like you and me) and this is aimed for the "extreme" category.



i9 will be marketed for the same market segment as i7, I assume there will be also models with locked multiplier (like i7 920 - i7 950), both for "Extreme" and "Enthusiast/Performance" if we judge this by AMD/ATI standards


----------



## n-ster (Aug 1, 2009)

6-cores are for either servers or EXTREME markets... 1000$ is not for the you and me type... you can't compare an i7 920 at 200$ to a 1000$ CPU no matter what. I am buying an i7 920 soon, and I would NEVER even CONSIDER spending 1k$ into one.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

n-ster said:


> 6-cores are for either servers or EXTREME markets... 1000$ is not for the you and me type... you can't compare an i7 920 at 200$ to a 1000$ CPU no matter what. I am buying an i7 920 soon, and I would NEVER even CONSIDER spending 1k$ into one.



Not that many people can spend 1k on a cpu but those that can will and i encourage them too

like i said before dont hate on the people that buy this, and encourage them to push it to the limit thats what the extremes are for.

if i start working again i will deff buy this cpu since its a drop in upgrade


----------



## n-ster (Aug 1, 2009)

I don't hate... I just find it a waste of money TBH... Like buying an i7 950 for example, (and I'm talking here for the people who are going to be using it not just people who would buy it to OC it for fun or bench it) IMO is a WASTE. same or i7 975. If you can get 95% of the performance for a fifth of the price, guess which one is more worth it...

If I wanted to, I could have a much larger house, a very nice car etc. I have the money for that. I'm in a 1100 sq ft apartment (we're 4 in it) and we have a Honda Civic 2002 with 150 000 miles on it.

I hate wasting $$ when it could go somewhere useful.


----------



## toyo (Aug 1, 2009)

If I had the money so 1000$ hit to the wallet will be insignificant, I would most certainly buy the fastest unlocked i7, and when they're on the market, i9. Even if I would not plan on overclocking it, I'd still buy it because it's the fastest@stock, so practically no need to OC. The decisions are so simple if you have enough money, given the CPU market today. 
That's why I hope AMD will somehow develop some CPU that will rival the high-end i7s... that would push Intel to drop the prices even more.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

n-ster said:


> I don't hate... I just find it a waste of money TBH... Like buying an i7 950 for example, (and I'm talking here for the people who are going to be using it not just people who would buy it to OC it for fun or bench it) IMO is a WASTE. same or i7 975. If you can get 95% of the performance for a fifth of the price, guess which one is more worth it...
> 
> If I wanted to, I could have a much larger house, a very nice car etc. I have the money for that. I'm in a 1100 sq ft apartment (we're 4 in it) and we have a Honda Civic 2002 with 150 000 miles on it.
> 
> *I hate wasting $$ when it could go somewhere useful.*



If people are buying $1k+ Cpu they have $$$

some will buy a really expensive system and not upgrade for years and when they need more speed they will overclock there cpu or get the next big thing ( again a few years later )


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 1, 2009)

n-ster said:


> I don't hate... I just find it a waste of money TBH... Like buying an i7 950 for example, (and I'm talking here for the people who are going to be using it not just people who would buy it to OC it for fun or bench it) IMO is a WASTE. same or i7 975. If you can get 95% of the performance for a fifth of the price, guess which one is more worth it...
> 
> If I wanted to, I could have a much larger house, a very nice car etc. I have the money for that. I'm in a 1100 sq ft apartment (we're 4 in it) and we have a Honda Civic 2002 with 150 000 miles on it.
> 
> I hate wasting $$ when it could go somewhere useful.




If you have the money, there is no reason to live more comfortably or get buy what you want. Say this processor compared to an i7, yes the i7 will come within probably a few percent in games as well as any other application not set-up for 4+ cores. 

The comparison you're making isn't quite correct. I could go buy an E5200 to game with for ~$70  and it will game nearly as well as an i7 (acceptable framerates). So are you saying because I can get this E5200 for 1/10th the cost of the i9 that I should indeed ignore the faster and better processor just so I can save money that won't matter to me? 

The people that this will be targeting most likely will be a one time splurge like Wile E will be doing or it won't matter to them basically being pocket change. As mentioned earlier like the guys riding around in the Ferrari's, you won't buy a Ferrari (normal person) if it's going to cause an issue somewhere else. 

I'm with others here, buy the best you can. At the end of the day you'll still have tech that will last a lot longer than you'll keep it, at which point reselling it you'll make some of your money back and upgrade to the next new thing out. 

On another note, I wouldn't buy this processor at full retail or even half retail because I am an individual that can afford to purchase a processor that costs a grand.


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 1, 2009)

alright no more bashing on people 

Lets leave it on:
"if you got the money and want it, go for it" 

back on topic

------------------
n-ster / odameyer 
you both have your opinions and i have mine but we can still be friends in the end


----------



## n-ster (Aug 1, 2009)

Of course we can be friend 

My opinion though is get good quality at the right prices, but don't go extreme for a whole amount more. Gaming is not the only thing PCs do you know  I have the money, sure I'd like to have a six-core CPU.... But I hate wasting money if what I do (gaming yes, but other stuff too) will not benefit at all or VERY little from it or even a moderate amount, if it means spending 1k$. Perhaps you don't see it, but North America is a very wasteful way of life in general. I try to stay away from that, my dad is the same way which is why is companies do very well. If you don't know what to do with your money, give it to the poor or use it to make more money so that later you can give it to the poor.

anyways Assassin's probably right, we should get back on topic and we have different views... so what?


----------



## Easo (Aug 1, 2009)

odameyer said:


> I don't have mile deep pockets that's why lol.



<_<


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 1, 2009)

They've only brought these out so fits has summat new to buy


----------



## Triprift (Aug 1, 2009)

Exactly and heel tell us all about it to.


----------



## wolf (Aug 1, 2009)

Altered said:


> I read these 2 lines in the article



awesome thanks, didn't see that


----------



## legends84 (Aug 1, 2009)

6 core already.. this thing fast and costly.. 4 cores is enough for me right now


----------



## wreack (Aug 1, 2009)

*Ge--ni--us*



dburn3 said:


> 6 cores would be awesome if their was actually software to support it.


 the first rational comment to the thread.
i guess media will be the first to take the advantages of 12 thread
and for gaming it will take a long time, i think only the only thing that scaling in gaming is the video card tech thingy, and also it's price


----------



## rampage (Aug 1, 2009)

i see no real reason to jump on this because its still basicly the same debate with dual core vs quad core, what apps (that the general public) mostly use that need 4,8,12,16,24,1000 threads to run, sure the odd program will benifit but realy, how may games, internet browsers, office apps realy need more threads over more GHZ ?

hmmmmmm come to think of it those programs are the multi threaded programs that benifit form multi threaded cpu's, why the general public see and have no real pratical use for multi threaded cpu's is the software hasnt cought up, and wont for another few years,  heck general software is still stuck on 32bit (dont get me started on that one)

yes ppl will still buy quads, hexa, octo, ect core cpus because they want the best, or just the biggest e-penis, or may have a genuine reason (the rarest reason of all), and that is fine, but for the general public a dual core is quite often more then enough, a 4>4.5 ghz dual will keep up (95% of the time) with any gaming rig the only down fall is only GFX power, and dx 11 should help that in months to come (but then again the software is the limiting factor has to keep up)


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Aug 1, 2009)

source is actually http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=230923


----------



## hat (Aug 1, 2009)

Any 1GHz desktop single core (as in not low power stuff like Atom) is fine for average joe what with his email, his interwebz and his Microsoft Word/OpenOffice. Hey... we reached 1GHz with the PIII didn't we... that's some old tech 

It's easy to get people thinking that more cores = more performance. That's the first thing I thought when my uncle showed me his Pentium D 3GHz, thet it was as good as a P4 at 6GHz. However, more threads/cores easily benefits special interest like supercomputers. Theoretically, a supercomputer with 1 million dual cores is just as good as a supercomputer with 2 million single cores. Servers too, although it's not as extreme as an example.


----------



## Kreij (Aug 1, 2009)

hat said:


> *It's easy to get people thinking that more cores = more performance.* That's the first thing I thought when my uncle showed me his Pentium D 3GHz, thet it was as good as a P4 at 6GHz. However, more threads/cores easily benefits special interest like supercomputers. Theoretically, a supercomputer with 1 million dual cores is just as good as a supercomputer with 2 million single cores. Servers too, although it's not as extreme as an example.



That would be because it's true, given that the software is written to support the cores.

BTW ... multi-core processors are faster than the same configuration with multiple single core prossors. (quad > 4 x singles).


----------



## hat (Aug 1, 2009)

Ah, the Kriejman... is Dan's snide wit and impossible logic rubbing off on you? 

Ugh.. I don't even want to start the cores and software argument... I've been through it too many times. But I will still say that most programs aren't optomized for multi-core yet


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 1, 2009)

hat said:


> Ah, the Kriejman... is Dan's snide wit and impossible logic rubbing off on you?
> 
> Ugh.. I don't even want to start the cores and software argument... I've been through it too many times. *But I will still say that most programs aren't optomized for multi-core yet*



So it's a software problem then, something Intel and AMD are not directly involved in.


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 1, 2009)

Hardware technology go too much faster than the software and driver's.


----------



## Marineborn (Aug 1, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> why not 8 core



cause amd is gonna wait for intel to drop 6 cores then there gonna drop 8 and laugh there asses off and sell it for 200 dollars. HAHAHAHA


----------



## zOaib (Aug 1, 2009)

nice no need to change mobos for this upgrade , extreme version here i come
(my i7 975 soon to be on sale ) =P


----------



## cray86 (Aug 1, 2009)

I know have a quad core that runs stable at 3.6ghz.

Why upgrade until there is an 8 core that runs at 3.6ghz? Besides, software (outside of video encoding) needs to catch up


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Aug 1, 2009)

well i could be a dumbass and get 1 cause i could afford it but nah f*** that i'm buying tpu soon instead
ooh that's made ya think ey 
has he that kind of money 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





well even if i had no one would no so i can have fun


----------



## Kreij (Aug 1, 2009)

hat said:


> Ah, the Kriejman... is Dan's snide wit and impossible logic rubbing off on you?



Perhaps, my good friend hat, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that is a bad thing. 



hat said:


> Ugh.. I don't even want to start the cores and software argument... I've been through it too many times. But I will still say that most programs aren't optomized for multi-core yet



If you are talking about games, that is sadly true. They need to catch up and I think that most dev studios are heading in the right direction as far as core utilization goes.
If you are talking about general applications, there are many that utilize multi-core processors to their full advantage.
Remember, not every application _needs_ to be a multi-threaded, multi-core powerhouse. I doesn't make any sense for a developer to pour effort into creating that kind of code, especially as the OS's get better at thread execution distribution between cores.


----------



## REVHEAD (Aug 2, 2009)

This is not needed for gaming and wont be another 2 to 4 years away untill it is, most are struggling to multi thread for 2 cores and as for 4 cores I am yet to see a game were all 4 cores are @ 100% cpu usage.

 Devs code for Console then port for PC these days, so even thinking about 6 cores or 8 isnt even in there ballpark, rushing to upgrade to this I9 is great for picking up other like minded geeks on the net if your into that kind of thing, but it certainly wont help you get the chicks, or even help your FPS in Real world games, but for benchmarking I can see it helping a great deal, as they can slap a refresh patch out for 3dmarks to help use the cores, but for coding a whole game I cant see it.

 This chip would be great for a server, AMD are allready in the 8 core era and Intel know they had to bring soemthing out to compete.


----------



## Animalpak (Aug 2, 2009)

REVHEAD said:


> This is not needed for gaming and wont be another 2 to 4 years away untill it is, most are struggling to multi thread for 2 cores and as for 4 cores I am yet to see a game were all 4 cores are @ 100% cpu usage.
> 
> Devs code for Console then port for PC these days, so even thinking about 6 cores or 8 isnt even in there ballpark, rushing to upgrade to this I9 is great for picking up other like minded geeks on the net if your into that kind of thing, but it certainly wont help you get the chicks, or even help your FPS in Real world games, but for benchmarking I can see it helping a great deal, as they can slap a refresh patch out for 3dmarks to help use the cores, but for coding a whole game I cant see it.
> 
> This chip would be great for a server, AMD are allready in the 8 core era and Intel know they had to bring soemthing out to compete.



You need this for get the chicks.


----------



## REVHEAD (Aug 2, 2009)

Animalpak said:


> You need this for get the chicks.
> 
> 
> http://www.thesupercars.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/porsche-carrera-gt-2.jpg



Hell yeah that would bring them in in droves


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 2, 2009)

new games coming out still dont all support 4 cores.... this is definetly overkill for a gamer


----------



## Kreij (Aug 2, 2009)

ShiBDiB said:


> new games coming out still dont all support 4 cores.... this is definetly *overkill* for a gamer



The word "overkill" is not in the vocabulary of most hard core TPU people, and if I remember correctly, using the word "overkill" on TPU can get you an infraction 

Anyway, you are right in that many games do not support the cores, but the newer games will. It is for that reason that people building gaming rigs should not shun multi-core processors as it will make their rig a bit more future-proof.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2009)

Core i7 is more than enough for every game out there.  Core i9 is only really useful for heavy, multithreaded applications (CAD, research, etc.).


Newer games won't because most of the market is still running dual-cores.  Quad-core has to be mainstream before we start seeing some games that could put hexa-core to work.


----------



## Konceptz (Aug 2, 2009)

Finally, my 9770 replacement is alive.....


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Aug 2, 2009)

If I were to get one of these, I would probably use it strictly for folding/crunching, and maybe some leisure time merryment.
Gotta be able to play games at max settings every once in a while


----------



## HammerON (Aug 2, 2009)

Imagine running Bionic WCG with this CPU ~ 
Oh the possibilities


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 2, 2009)

I would be buying the Xeon version instead of the Core i9 version in a server.  Better to run 24/7.


----------



## werez (Aug 2, 2009)

monster....


----------



## buggalugs (Aug 2, 2009)

I dont think its completely true that 6 cores is useless. Even if games are not coded for more than 2 cores the new windows7 and DX11 has features for offloading onto as many cores as available.

 Then again they made a lot of promises for DX 10 that didnt really pan out, i guess we have to wait and see.


----------



## Nick89 (Aug 3, 2009)

I'm just going to skip all these new processors until I can get an affordable 8-12 core processor.

My PII 940 should hold me over till then.


----------



## legends84 (Aug 3, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> I'm just going to skip all these new processors until I can get an affordable 8-12 core processor.
> 
> My PII 940 should hold me over till then.



+1


----------



## tastegw (Aug 3, 2009)

if they make the i9 920 version and price it $400 or less,  im getting one and never looking back.

vantage would love this paired with a few next gen nvidia cards.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 3, 2009)

So i assume that Core i9 is 2-way only where Core i7 is 1-way only only???


----------



## btarunr (Aug 3, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> So i assume that Core i9 is 2-way only where Core i7 is 1-way only only???



No, there will be Xeon 2P parts, Xeon 1P, and Core i9 1P, just like how the current Bloomfield/Nehalem has Xeon 2P, 1P, Core i7 1P. Maybe there's a Core i9 2P for Skulltrail II platform too, I don't know.


----------



## laszlo (Aug 3, 2009)

nice cpu but i don't thing i'll ever have one because i don't need it;even if future games or softs will be written to use multicore cpu's i think a quad will be enough for me and a lot of users also

just remember when the 1st quad appeared a few years ago how many softs were written to use it except the benchmark ones....even now is poorly implemented the point is we need better softs now not cpu's


----------

