Core i9 Gulftown release date?

K

keshavcharya

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
309
does anyone on this loyal intel forum know when the hex-core and apparently highly OCable gulftown cpu is going to be released? i can't find any info on the WWW and it's killing me. any help would be useful. thank you.

-keshav c
 
For me, it's not just the two extra cores, it's the overclocking potential. I can't wait to use my Prolimatech Megahalems with that thing. Hex-core fun!
 
keshavcharya said:
For me, it's not just the two extra cores, it's the overclocking potential. I can't wait to use my Prolimatech Megahalems with that thing. Hex-core fun!
Click to expand...

What makes you think it's going to overclock any better than the existing i7s?
 
I'm still thinking they'll doll out the I9's like the I7's. Low, Mid and high clocked ones.

Thinking a 2.4Ghz one will be 399-499 dollars
 
I can't imagine two more cores are going to make overclocking any easier.

I'm betting the i7 9xx is going to be the best OC'ing processor for gamers.

... I'm still waiting for i9 before moving up to LGA 1366
 
I think the 32nm vs 45nm can make overclocking easier but the 4.6GHz OC had the CPU voltage way way out of spec. I expect these 6 core CPUs to run on 1.1V or less at stock frequency with a max of 1.25V.
 
IRSmurf said:
I can't imagine two more cores are going to make overclocking any easier.

I'm betting the i7 9xx is going to be the best OC'ing processor for gamers.

... I'm still waiting for i9 before moving up to LGA 1366
Click to expand...

I'm with you. If I can I'm going whole hog on an i9 rig. 1 TB SSD, 24GB, the works if prices come down just a bit but the time the i9 releases.
 
heatlesssun said:
I'm with you. If I can I'm going whole hog on an i9 rig. 1 TB SSD, 24GB, the works if prices come down just a bit but the time the i9 releases.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware there was 1tb SSDs...I can't even imagine how much those will cost...around 3 g's? I suppose money isn't much of prob then :cool:
 
OCing wise, pretty sure the 32nm Dual-cores have the best potential for highest ghz.
6-core's base clock of 2.4ghz is a bit underwhelming :(
 
ihira said:
OCing wise, pretty sure the 32nm Dual-cores have the best potential for highest ghz.
6-core's base clock of 2.4ghz is a bit underwhelming :(
Click to expand...

I doubt that Intel's at least $1000 flagship processor is going come in with a stock speed of 2.4 GHz. Plus i9 is supposed to 20% clock for clock than the i7.
 
ihira said:
OCing wise, pretty sure the 32nm Dual-cores have the best potential for highest ghz.
6-core's base clock of 2.4ghz is a bit underwhelming :(
Click to expand...
I'll ignore the 2.4Ghz thing, because while thats what samples are being sent out at, nobody, even Intel, knows what the final clocks will be.

As to the OCing thing, to a degree. For pure potential, the duals might have the speed, but they are on the s1156 platform, leaving them with the same PCI-E issues as lynnfields are seeing. Also, to a lot of people dual cores just aren't enough anymore, leaving the 32nm field open to gulftown or nothing.

I don't particularly like the socket split, but unlike many people I understand the reasons behind it. For sure, some of the consequences do just plain suck.
 
GLSauron said:
I'll ignore the 2.4Ghz thing, because while thats what samples are being sent out at, nobody, even Intel, knows what the final clocks will be.

As to the OCing thing, to a degree. For pure potential, the duals might have the speed, but they are on the s1156 platform, leaving them with the same PCI-E issues as lynnfields are seeing. Also, to a lot of people dual cores just aren't enough anymore, leaving the 32nm field open to gulftown or nothing.

I don't particularly like the socket split, but unlike many people I understand the reasons behind it. For sure, some of the consequences do just plain suck.
Click to expand...

I'd definatly ignore the 2.4GHz thing:
http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131

My 902 came at 2.55Ghz stock....been running 3.5Ghz on stock like a champ since a week after install...if gulftown can reach 3.5Ghz on air, it will be fine by me :D
 
GLSauron said:
Also, to a lot of people dual cores just aren't enough anymore, leaving the 32nm field open to gulftown or nothing.
.
Click to expand...

I said this in another thread but I'll say it again.
Intel, make a damn 32nm nehalem QUAD.
Dual-core is too late in the game, and 6 core is overkill + wallet killer for most of us (lol @ 2.4ghz).
Why ignore the sweet spot market?
 
ihira said:
I said this in another thread but I'll say it again.
Intel, make a damn 32nm nehalem QUAD.
Dual-core is too late in the game, and 6 core is overkill + wallet killer for most of us (lol @ 2.4ghz).
Why ignore the sweet spot market?
Click to expand...


Maby there will be a 32nm i5? :confused:
 
Zero82z said:
Only dual-cores. There will be no quad-core 32nm Nehalem CPUs, i5 or otherwise.
Click to expand...
So will Intel be ditching the quad cores for the time being? (I still have a q9300 around, somewhere)
Or are they just going to jump to the next level of fab? (28nm?)
 
jeremyshaw said:
So will Intel be ditching the quad cores for the time being? (I still have a q9300 around, somewhere)
Or are they just going to jump to the next level of fab? (28nm?)
Click to expand...
Intel will release 32nm quad-core CPUs when they introduce their Sandy Bridge architecture. The current i5 and i7 lines will only have 45nm quad-cores.
 
As he said, sandy [bridge] will get 32nm quads (even quads will have die GPU, improving on westmere's on package GPU which is for duals only), and ivy [bridge] will be a shrink to 22nm.

I expect we'll get more official info on westmere and some early info on sandy during IDF (which is this week IIRC). In addition to clarkfield (mobile version of lynnfield) launching tomorrow on day 1 of IDF.
 
I don't think i quite understand why intel would push this chip on consumers. As it is, games really see no improvement from more then 2 threads. For consumer products and multitasking, core i7's 8 threads already seems to be a bit of overkill. Sounds like an awful waste of electricity just to get 2/4 more physical/logical threads (respectively).

I'm all for progress, but i guess id like to see intel improve the workload capacity on each thread, rather then adding more threads.
 
strangely enough tscolin, some people do things other than play games on their computers. And for those who do a variety of things on their computers, like, say, recording/capturing videos and transcoding them to other formats like PMP videos, more threads work well.
How you use your PC may not be how everyone uses their PCs.
 
ihira said:
OCing wise, pretty sure the 32nm Dual-cores have the best potential for highest ghz.
6-core's base clock of 2.4ghz is a bit underwhelming :(
Click to expand...

If they use the same 133 bclk as the i7s, that means it has a multiplier of 18, which is worse than i7 which is not a good sign for said processor in overclocking, unless it runs much cooler. Which I doubt since any advantage from the smaller process will be offset by 2 extra cores in there too. Probably. Could always be wrong though.... I'd like to be. lol.
 
mrmylanman said:
If they use the same 133 bclk as the i7s, that means it has a multiplier of 18, which is worse than i7 which is not a good sign for said processor in overclocking, unless it runs much cooler. Which I doubt since any advantage from the smaller process will be offset by 2 extra cores in there too. Probably. Could always be wrong though.... I'd like to be. lol.
Click to expand...
looking at the early ES samples, yeah. You're wrong. >4Ghz on air and >6Ghz on LN2.
 
The i9 is suppose to be a six-core with HT right? I mean so far the only differences right now between 1366 and 1156 is one has tri-channel, and the other dual-channel.
 
Proxy said:
The i9 is suppose to be a six-core with HT right? I mean so far the only differences right now between 1366 and 1156 is one has tri-channel, and the other dual-channel.
Click to expand...

There are more differences than that. The LGA1156 CPUs have an integrated PCI-Express controller. When it comes to overclocking the LGA1156 CPUs seem to need more voltage and end up with higher temperatures and are thus tougher to keep cool. At least that's been my experience thus far.
 
Zero82z said:
Only dual-cores. There will be no quad-core 32nm Nehalem CPUs, i5 or otherwise.
Click to expand...

This all depends on the market conditions next year as well. We can look at Roadmaps all day long, but remember, that if AMD doesn't come up with anything to give Intel any competition then Intel, may simply release a die shrink (with small optimizations) of a Bloomfield. Why? For the same reasons as with the Penryn. I bet that when we were all looking at the dawn of the LGA775 P4s and the rise of C2D/C2Qs, the Penryn wasn't even mentioned in Roadmaps. But as the 45nm process matured, they were put out, because it allowed Intel to further increase their bottom line.

Being able to sell Nehalem quads at the same price while being able to produce more per wafer is a "win-win" for Intel. If there is little competition from AMD next year, and 45nm inventory is running low, then the 32nm quad may be viable. Who knows?

At this point, I don't see something as far off as the Sandy Bridge as a high priority for Intel, simply because Intel has no pressure to release the platform yet. This does not mean that they shouldn't develop the next architecture, but simply that there's no rush to put it out.

Anyone know what the turbo multis are for the i9? I'm willing to bet it will be mega high for a 1-3 cores and conservative for 3-6 core operation just like on the Lynnfields. Still we're talking small data center like processing power for your desktop here. hahaha...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top