Intel's Core i7 970 Reviewed, (Slightly) More Affordable 6-core
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 29, 2010 3:23 AM ESTFinal Words
In March I called the Core i7 980X the first Extreme Edition CPU that I was excited about. Price aside, you make no tradeoffs with the 980X. You get the absolute best performance in heavily threaded applications and nearly the same in all other workloads. Power consumption was also a non-issue, at least compared to last year's 45nm quad-core. Whether or not the 980X was worth it really depended on what sort of applications you're using. If you're doing a lot of 3D rendering, video encoding or other heavily threaded tasks it makes sense. Otherwise, despite the class leading performance, it's not a good value.
Recounting an old conclusion is one of the laziest things I can do as a writer, but I'm doing it here because the very same points hold true to today's Core i7 970. You save $100 and give up unlocked multipliers and a very small amount of performance. If you're going to be running at stock clock speeds, the 970 is a fine way to make the Gulftown jump a little more palatable. If you're planning on overclocking, the 980X may be a better option. The unlocked multiplier helps and you may be able to get a little more headroom out of the 980X if the Core i7 970 is truly just a binned 980X.
Thankfully at these price points there's not much deliberating necessary. You either have the budget for it or you don't. And if you're remotely considering splurging, keep in mind that quad-core will get even faster early next year with Sandy Bridge.
Like the 980X, the Core i7 970 isn't something I'd personally buy simply because of the price. It's a great performer however. For some, that's all that matters. And looking at Intel's roadmap, you won't see a significantly faster 6-core replacement until Q4 2011.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
dragunover - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
This CPU is a joke until it's getting sold for under four hundred dollars....AstroGuardian - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Why just not take i5-750 and overclock the heck out of it and beat the "crab" out of the i7-970?Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Does overclocking net you additional cores now?(Sarcasm aside, you CAN net additional cores on an AMD CPU!)
afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Cause then you can overlock the i7-970 and beat the "crab" out of anything else, minus the 980X.medi01 - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link
Which still won't justify 5 times higher price.afkrotch - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link
Never said it did. I can't see why anyone would ever pay $500 or more for a processor you'll be using at home. I'd say it's a different story if it's a work related business expense.Me, I will never buy a proc that costs more than $350. I always stay within that budget. I find that the sweet spot. You can get a fast processor and you can usually overclock it to match the $1000 ones.
swaaye - Friday, August 13, 2010 - link
Intel's pricing strategy seems to pay off in the end, historically. :)Will Robinson - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
It's pricey but very quick at pretty much everything.Thanks for the look anyway.
Could AT consider an article highlighting the need for software that really shines on this hardware?
Who's coding 6 core +HT stuff anyway?
Give them a push Anand :)
AstroGuardian - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
"If you're doing a lot of 3D rendering, video encoding or other heavily threaded tasks it makes sense. Otherwise, despite the class leading performance, it's not a good value. "Read the review!!! .... damn it
Taft12 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link
Server workloads and animation professionals.