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

[Maban]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Btw - Sandy Bridge > Gulftown

 

[Easy Rhino]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[_JP_]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.