Looking for a good 32 NM Quadcore

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,968
I read a couple of reviews of Gulftown, and I was impressed. Its not only a good overclocker, even with a stock coolar it can outperform a 920 overclocked at 4Ghz, and despite having 2 extra cores its power consumption and heat generation is less than an 45 NM quad core.

However 980 is way expensive for my budget and 6 cores will be an overkill for me. So can someone suggest me a 32 NM quad core that with reasonable price and good overclocking capability? That can be the king just like E8400 was during its days and still it is a great CPU.
 

4x4not

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
527
^--- This. The hex-core was the first release of the new i7 architecture 32nm fab chips. The only other 32nm are the i3/i5 dual cores...
 

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,645
There's always core i3 and the i5 6 series. They are all duals with hyperthreading.
 

pjkenned

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,971
The 32nm i3's and i5's are great chips... so good that Intel is having major issues supplying enough of them for the notebook market. Odds are we aren't going to see a cheap $200 32nm quad core until they can stop selling $150 dual cores.
 

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,968
I am sticking to quadcore. Enough of dual cores. E8400 is great, I don't have any plan to upgrade my main rig. The only thing that I seem bit incomptent in E8400 is my antivirus automatically scans so while playing crysis when the virus scanning begins or even if someone flashes a message in yahoo messenger, the whole system becomes slow.

This thing will be eliminated in Quad cores. I have my 2nd rig which is a pentium D. This one I will replace with a quad core. Core i3 is good but a dual core, so its no go, Core i5 650 is slower than 750 so its no way closer to be considered a king.

looks like I have to wait till October for Core i7-970[1]
 
Last edited:

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,968
The 32nm i3's and i5's are great chips... so good that Intel is having major issues supplying enough of them for the notebook market. Odds are we aren't going to see a cheap $200 32nm quad core until they can stop selling $150 dual cores.


That is a case with mobile processors, for desktop there is a need for something new in Quad
 

Aaron11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,480
I am sticking to quadcore. Enough of dual cores. E8400 is great, I don't have any plan to upgrade my main rig. The only thing that I seem bit incomptent in E8400 is my antivirus automatically scans so while playing crysis when the virus scanning begins or even if someone flashes a message in yahoo messenger, the whole system becomes slow.

This thing will be eliminated in Quad cores. I have my 2nd rig which is a pentium D. This one I will replace with a quad core. Core i3 is good but a dual core, so its no go, Core i5 650 is slower than 750 so its no way closer to be considered a king.

looks like I have to wait till October for Core i7-970[1]
Even though it's not 32nm, I'd get a i7 920 if your really want a quad core. You can't go wrong with those. I agree with what you said about dual-cores. I think nowadays it's a sin to buy a dual-core if you want the best possible performance (now I know quads still don't really matter for gaming, but they're the best at everything else). Now the next system I build will be at the very least, an AMD triple core.
 

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,645
^ Westmere duals outperform that AMD triple core. Multitasking wise oc'd they are pretty on par with last gen Intel quads. Clock for clock single and dual threaded they are superior.
 
Last edited:

Aaron11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,480
^ Westmere duals outperform that AMD triple core. Multitasking wise oc'd they are pretty on par with last gen Intel quads. Clock for clock single and dual threaded they are superior.
The main reason I'd get a triple is for multitasking. They're pretty good at video encoding, You could get an Athlon II X3 425 and OC it to 3.51Ghz (w/o fourth core unlocked) and it has video encoding performance almost on par with the x4 620 and the Q6600 at stock (but who the hell runs a q6600 at stock, right?). When I made the statement you were referring to, I meant that triples/quads are more future-proof than dual-cores. If I were to buy I new dual-core system, the i3/i5 are great dual-core especially because of their four threads. Then again, I could always get a phenom ii x2 555 and take my chances with unlocking the other two cores.
 

kniaugaudiskis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
268
I am sticking to quadcore. Enough of dual cores. E8400 is great, I don't have any plan to upgrade my main rig. The only thing that I seem bit incomptent in E8400 is my antivirus automatically scans so while playing crysis when the virus scanning begins or even if someone flashes a message in yahoo messenger, the whole system becomes slow.

This thing will be eliminated in Quad cores. I have my 2nd rig which is a pentium D. This one I will replace with a quad core. Core i3 is good but a dual core, so its no go, Core i5 650 is slower than 750 so its no way closer to be considered a king.

looks like I have to wait till October for Core i7-970[1]
You see, i7 970 is a 6 core CPU clocked at 3.2GHz. Unfortunately, according to latest news it's going to be just a little cheaper than i7 980x. Fudzilla also says it'll be released in a couple of weeks.
 

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,968
According to latest sources it will cost 562 bucks and is scheduled to be launched on Q3 (October). The moment its price reach somewhere less than 300 bucks I will buy it. So its still no way closer
 

ihira

Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
904
Its likely we're not going to see any 32nm i7 quads from Intel for i7 line-up.
Just 6cores and dual cores till Sandy Bridge (2011) :(

I was going to do a new build sometime this year too but it seems our options are

1) 'Compromise' with a 45nm i7 920/930 that have been around since 2008. Clock to clock they're still the same as the i7 980X so you won'e be missing performance.

2) Bite the bullet with 32nm 6core i7 970 hoping it will release @ $562. 32nm and high stock clocks are nice, but will I actually utilize 6cores? Probably not enough to justify the price over the <$300 i7s.

3) Wait till Sandy Bridge for 32nm quads. Nextgen architecture and lower power consumption than 6core i7s :) Wait untill 2011 :(

You choose...
 

oilfieldtrash

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
482
Its likely we're not going to see any 32nm i7 quads from Intel for i7 line-up.
Just 6cores and dual cores till Sandy Bridge (2011) :(

I was going to do a new build sometime this year too but it seems our options are

1) 'Compromise' with a 45nm i7 920/930 that have been around since 2008. Clock to clock they're still the same as the i7 980X so you won'e be missing performance.

2) Bite the bullet with 32nm 6core i7 970 hoping it will release @ $562. 32nm and high stock clocks are nice, but will I actually utilize 6cores? Probably not enough to justify the price over the <$300 i7s.

3) Wait till Sandy Bridge for 32nm quads. Nextgen architecture and lower power consumption than 6core i7s :) Wait untill 2011 :(

You choose...
I wouldn't call a 920/930 a compromise. More than enough CPU for anything out there unless your talking thousands of dollars servers.
 

4x4not

Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
527
Its likely we're not going to see any 32nm i7 quads from Intel for i7 line-up.
Just 6cores and dual cores till Sandy Bridge (2011) :(

This is a good point, although Intel might release some quads from 6 cores that have a damaged core or two, sort of like how AMD does it with the tri cores... this is a big maybe though...
 

Wiseguy2001

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
3,466
There are 32nm socket 1366's quads about, the Xeon 56xx series are all 32nm and the lower end parts are quads.

I'm ordering tomorrow and trying to decide between a xeon W3530 (rebadged i7 930) for £200 and a xeon E5620 (32nm, 2.4ghz, 12mb cache) for £277. I'm not sure paying more money for a lower multiplier makes sense or 32nm is worth it. This is for a workstation not a bleeding edge overclock.
 

wickedld9

Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
661
I read a couple of reviews of Gulftown, and I was impressed. Its not only a good overclocker, even with a stock coolar it can outperform a 920 overclocked at 4Ghz, and despite having 2 extra cores its power consumption and heat generation is less than an 45 NM quad core.

However 980 is way expensive for my budget and 6 cores will be an overkill for me. So can someone suggest me a 32 NM quad core that with reasonable price and good overclocking capability? That can be the king just like E8400 was during its days and still it is a great CPU.

This is the cheapest I could find one...
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=XEON5630&c=pw
 
Top