Intel's Core i7-970 gets reviewed: great for overclocking, still expensive
By Darren Murph 
posted August 12th 2010 1:59PM
posted August 12th 2010 1:59PM
It may be a cheaper way to join the high-end Core i7 family, but that doesn't mean it's "cheap." Intel's Core i7-970 ($899), which just started shipping to consumers around a month ago, has just undergone a thorough looking-over at Hot Hardware, where the six-core chip was tested alongside its more potent (and in turn, more costly) siblings. If you've no interest in dropping over a grand for a Core i7-980X, and you aren't about to lower yourself by purchasing a quad-core Core i7-975, this here chip might just do you proud. In testing, critics found the 970 to be quick, but hardly mind-blowing, when handling more mundane tasks; stir in a few heavily threaded applications, though, and it managed to "sail past" the quad-core contemporaries and "keep pace" with the aforementioned 980X. All told, the silicon managed to perform around 5 percent worse than the 980X, yet it rings up for around 12 percent less. If you've got the workflow to truly take advantage of all six cores, and you can stomach not having the absolute best, it seems as if the 970 strikes a fine balance -- and hey, if you're down with overclocking, you can probably get that 5 percent back with just a mild uptick in your energy bill.
Intel really needs to get their priceses in order... How can anyone even afford to buy these things?
Their target market is willing to pay that much... Though, I do agree, they could probably afford to lower their prices...
@m0rk
These i7 are the flagship products. Most of us are not MEANT to be able to afford them...rather, we are to envy the owners of these monsters in awe...
@m0rk
Intel offer's lots of great affordable chips. You can get an i7-920 for like $200.
If the price matters just get an AMD chip.
@m0rk
People can afford them by getting things called careers. These are not meant for high-school students or poor college students.
@m0rk You would be surprised our company sells a fair amount of these to consumers when I see the total invoice my jaw drops each time. I guess for really high end computing and logic they can't put a price on performance but for a regular consumer who is not doing supercomputing I think the most dual-quad cores do the job really. Just my opinion though.
@m0rk
i am running i7-975 o/c to 5.06ghz.
I dropped a grand on that chip.
I do a alot of encoding/decoding. And for that matter this chip is good, i mean the best.
@m0rk : "How can anyone even afford to buy these things?"
By getting a job.
@spsfinest Doesn't the i7 920 get you stuck with the older P55 chipset? Probably better to bump it from $200 to $300 and go with the i7 930 which is supported by the X58 chipset (at least that's what I chose to do).
@eisenb11
I think you sir are mistaken
The p55 chipset is used with the lga1156 socket which supports the 800 series of i7 processors not the 900s. it is also newer than the x58
不错~~
@(Unverified)
O RLY?
@(Unverified) No its not.
这个价格是方式为正常人高.
or you could just get a Phenom II x6 for $299 :)
@doramjan Precisely!
I don't see the point of this chip tbh. If you can spend this much money, might as well pick up the 980X with its unlocked multiplier. If Intel had priced it at even half its price, it would be much more worthwile.
@doramjan
I think that's what I'll end up getting when it's time to upgrade. To get a current processor I'll have to get a new motherboard and memory as well (I have LGA 775 right now,) so I might as well switch to AMD.
@Dafrety
That's exactly the problem I have with these prices. On top of a steep cpu price, I'm also forced to replace my motherboard and memory. The performance increase over what I currently have isn't worth the cost.
@doramjan
AMD's six-core processors arent that great.
http://www.techreaction.net/2010/05/06/amd-phenom-ii-six-core-1090t1095t-thuban-review/
The 295 dollar AMD chip, performs more or less on par with the 289 intel chip.
I would rather have the 980x for 100 bucks more
Writing on the heat spreader with a sharpie? :/ I have trouble seeing how that was a good idea.
this is why when i build my first system i am going with Amd
@Chad Vader
*Points at Bugatti Veyron pricetag*
This is why when I buy my first car I'm getting a Ford Mustang.
I'm not sure what you're saying there. Because a company has an expensive high end product that means that all of their other offerings aren't worthwhile?
@Dafrety
Amd gives you a 6 core processor for a low price. but intel want to charge an arm and a leg for the same amout of cores. which one are you going to take
@Chad Vader
Way to miss the point. I already said that if I was rebuilding my computer now I would go with AMD. However, just because Intel has an expensive version of their product does not invalidate the rest of the products they sell.
@Chad Vader
i have an AMD right now, quad core 3ghz... its a nice processor expecially for how downright cheap it was.. when all intels of the same specs were about triple the price.
but i have to say, from an engineering standpoint the intels are worth the money.
if an intel was only 100-150 bucks more than what my amd was.. i woulda bought it. but as it stands my amd was only like 200 at the time and the intel was 650.
Intels run cooler and smarter, amd just makes shit fast, simple, and cheap.
I absolutely love AMD but we cant knock on intel for charging higher prices for much smarter designs. I would even go so far as to say the average customer would drop their yearly energy bill $50-100(or even more) by switching to an i7 processor if they are like me and leave their comp running most of the time.
@schultz
My new rig was assembled last Saturday to replace my 7+ year old Pentium 4, 1GDDR ASUS mobo desktop. I went with -- what else? -- the i7 930, ASUS mobo (PS58XD-E) and 4G DDR3.
I can't afford to replace or upgrade often, so I wanted a system built for longevity. Considering what I put my P4 through (including having coffee spilled down the chassis!), I used the same philosophy from my last build. This new system runs beautifully, and Windows 7 64bit is a pleasant surprise. Ahem...I skipped Vista completely. I had an AMD machine years ago and had problems with incompatible software and patches that wouldn't work.
I'm so pleased with this rig, I can't wait for Blizzard to get to work and release Diablo III!
Damn for $899 I can build 2 decent quad core AMD based systems, that can at least run Crysis on Medium settings, this is why sense 1998, I have been buying(laptops), and building my systems with AMD, and VIA CPU's( cheap barebone net surfers for clients on a tight budget). Intel can stuff there over priced bullshit up there ASS!!!
No thanks. I'll wait till they offer six-core chips at a reasonable price.
i have a i7 940 that i got a launch for 500. I thought back then that prices where adiquite (sp) but it has gotten out of hand now
The problem with 6 core is that not that much support compare to a quad core.
I'll just wait for AMD Bulldozer architecture.
AMD's are cheaper but they've been getting their butts kicked in all the performance comparisons that I've read. That said I still don't see Intel's logic in being so greedy.
Well, the AMD Phenom x2 vs core i5-750 are about the right price/performance really. Both quad core, and the i5 has the turbo boost feature which probably makes it as equal as the 955 or (the $20 more) 965. Price is also about the same.
With that said, I just sold my AMD rig because (A) the stock cooler was winy and (B) I felt that the platform was unstable. +, I happen to fall into the "poor college student" category, living on social security only. So, uh, no, no expensive core i5 rig for me. I built myne for $493 with a microATX case, 4 gigs of ram, stock cooler, 8400gs, and temps idle around 40-44C. My amd system that I sold was built for $450, with an ATX midtower, 4 gigs ram, stock cooler/GPU, and temps idled around 44-46. So it seems that in the mid-market AMD and Intel are leveling off a bit. Take off $29 for the graphics card on this intel build and you see the point. Also, the intel build has a more expensive 750GB seagate HDD where as the AMD one had a 500GB western digital that also died right before I sold it!
woops, I meant, the i5 has the turbo boost feature-take out the booth quad core part of the comment! :D
if intel want people to buy there product if it is so good then make the price reasonable
intel still believes that you will pay $600 more for 0:05 faster than a AMD chip.
I've had mine for a few weeks now & over-clocked it to 4.15 GHz, rock stable. To answer all the $$$ questions - I do 3D animation, motion graphics and compositing so I can use the 12 threads effectively. The cost, though a bit high, feels VERY reasonable. I seriously considered a dual-HEX Xeon but was appalled by the ~$1700 PER chip cost. This system replaced an old dual-QUAD Xeon and runs faster (at the stock 3.2) and just feels most stable. Combined with a GTX470, this is the fastest most agile computer I've ever used. Sorry AMDers, I drank the Intel cool-aid years ago and I've never looked back. Awesome chip!
Oh come on, intel's best offerings have always been around this price point. I'm surprised it's not higher counting inflation over the past 10+ years.