I7 6 core cpu: Intel Core i7-8700K Desktop Processor 6 Cores up to 4.7GHz Turbo Unlocked LGA1151 300 Series 95W : Electronics

IndexA 12MB L3 Cache: 50% Larger, 14% Higher LatencyThe Roadmap: Sandy Bridge in 2011The HeatsinkExtreme Edition: 2010 vs. 2008 vs. 2005SYSMark 2007 PerformanceAdobe Photoshop CS4 PerformanceVideo Encoding Performance3D Rendering PerformanceArchiving, Excel, & Content Creation PerformanceWindows 7 Application PerformanceGaming PerformanceWindows 7 Gaming PerformancePower ConsumptionOverclockingFinal Words

It’s rare that anything we review has the longevity that Intel’s Core i7 Bloomfield platform has enjoyed. If you were one of the fortunate few to buy a Core i7 920, 940 or 965 back in November 2008, you’d still have one of the fastest desktop CPUs today in March 2010.

Lynnfield was introduced in 2009, but still couldn’t dethrone Bloomfield.

In fact, other than a few minor speed bumps, Intel hasn’t done much with its LGA-1366 platform in the past 15 months. Last year Intel introduced Nehalem for the rest of us with its LGA-1156 socket and in January we got the first dual-core derivatives.

Now it’s finally time to take care of the folks who invested in Nehalem and Core i7 early on. In the coming weeks Intel will be shipping its first 6-core desktop processor, built using the same 32nm process used in the Clarkdale Core i3/i5 CPUs. It’s codenamed Gulftown but today we can call it the Core i7 980X. Did I mention that with a BIOS update it’s fully compatible with all X58 motherboards? That’s right, even if you bought a board in November 2008 — you can upgrade directly to Gulftown.

Processor	Core Clock	Cores / Threads	L3 Cache	Max Turbo	TDP	Price
Intel Core i7 980X	3. 33GHz	6 / 12	12MB	3.60GHz	130W	$999
Intel Core i7 975	3.33GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.60GHz	130W	$999
Intel Core i7 960	3.20GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3. 46GHz	130W	$562
Intel Core i7 930	2.80GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.06GHz	130W	$284
Intel Core i7 870	2.93GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.60GHz	95W	$562
Intel Core i7 860	2. 80GHz	4 / 8	8MB	3.46GHz	95W	$284
Intel Core i5 750	2.66GHz	4 / 4	8MB	3.20GHz	95W	$196
Intel Core i5 670	3.46GHz	2 / 4	4MB	3. 73GHz	73W	$284
Intel Core i5 661	3.33GHz	2 / 4	4MB	3.60GHz	87W	$196
Intel Core i5 660	3.33GHz	2 / 4	4MB	3.60GHz	73W	$196
Intel Core i5 650	3. 20GHz	2 / 4	4MB	3.46GHz	73W	$176
Intel Core i3 540	3.06GHz	2 / 4	4MB	N/A	73W	$133
Intel Core i3 530	2.93GHz	2 / 4	4MB	N/A	73W	$113
Intel Pentium G9650	2. 80GHz	2 / 2	3MB	N/A	73W	$87

The Entire 2010 Nehalem/Westmere lineup

In fact, that’s exactly what I did for today’s review. This is Intel’s DX58SO motherboard I used in my original Core i7 review in November 2008:

It’s the same exact board, but updated to the 5020 BIOS that’s currently available on Intel’s site. Intel was sneaky and actually enabled Gulftown support in its motherboards a few weeks ago.

And here we have the result:

Intel’s Core i7 980X, running at 3.33GHz with 6 cores, 12 threads and a massive 12MB L3 cache all running on a motherboard that shipped a year and a half ago.

The old board works mostly fine with the 980X but with some odd bugs and quirks that I ran into. I found that my older DDR3-1066 memory wouldn’t overclock to 1333MHz with Gulftown, although it did just fine with Bloomfield for some reason.

It’s not just Intel enabling support either. All motherboard manufacturers either have or are expected to have BIOSes with Gulftown support by the time this chip ships in the coming weeks. ASRock sent over its X58 Extreme, which worked perfectly with the new chip:

It’s Extreme

The coolest part of Gulftown is that by building it on Intel’s 32nm process it’s actually smaller than both Bloomfield and Lynnfield, despite having 50% more cores and L3 cache:

CPU	Codename	Manufacturing Process	Cores	Transistor Count	Die Size
Westmere 6C	Gulftown	32nm	6	1. 17B	240mm2
Nehalem 4C	Bloomfield	45nm	4	731M	263mm2
Nehalem 4C	Lynnfield	45nm	4	774M	296mm2
Westmere 2C	Clarkdale	32nm	2	384M	81mm2
AMD Phenom II X4	Deneb	45nm	4	758M	258mm2

At 1. 2. It’s even smaller than an AMD Phenom II X4. Not only does it have a smaller die than all quad-core Nehalem processors, but it also has the same TDP.

The 130W chip runs at 3.33GHz, but because of the high TDP it can only turbo up to 3.46GHz with more than two cores active. If only one or two cores are active, the chip can turbo up to 3.60GHz. With up to 6 cores running at 3.46GHz, Gulftown is not only the fastest CPU in Intel’s lineup, it’s also the fastest quad-core Intel makes. Only the Core i5 670 can run at a higher frequency with a single core active (3.73GHz vs 3.60GHz).

The downside to all of this is the price tag. The Core i7 980X is an Extreme Edition processor, meaning it’s introduced at the $999 price point. And currently it’s the only way to get 6-cores in a Core i7.  Currently Intel doesn’t have any plans to introduce 4-core versions of Gulftown on the desktop, although we will see some 32nm quad-core Xeons later this year.

Bloomfield (left) vs. Gulftown (right)

This isn’t the first time that the $999 price tag comes with some exclusive features. The first Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was the very first to wear the EE brand. While all regular Pentium 4s at the time had a 512KB L2, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition added a 2MB L3 cache — a feature that never trickled down to the mainstream P4s.

Since then, most Extreme Edition parts have just been higher clocked CPUs. Despite that, they do sell well enough for Intel to continue the practice. Given that this time around, the Core i7 980X will not only give you clock speed but more cores and cache, Intel will probably end up selling more of these than they ever have.

A 12MB L3 Cache: 50% Larger, 14% Higher Latency
IndexA 12MB L3 Cache: 50% Larger, 14% Higher LatencyThe Roadmap: Sandy Bridge in 2011The HeatsinkExtreme Edition: 2010 vs. 2008 vs. 2005SYSMark 2007 PerformanceAdobe Photoshop CS4 PerformanceVideo Encoding Performance3D Rendering PerformanceArchiving, Excel, & Content Creation PerformanceWindows 7 Application PerformanceGaming PerformanceWindows 7 Gaming PerformancePower ConsumptionOverclockingFinal Words

Tweet

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Intel Core i7-8700K 6-Core 12-Thread Processor Review

Peter Donnell / 5 years ago

Intel Core i7-8700K

Both Intel and AMD have been locking horns over the last few months, something we haven’t seen on a competitive level for years now. We’ve had Ryzen and Threadripper go head to head with Intel’s previous/current gen, as well as their new X299 platform chips like the 18c 16t thread 7980XE. Now Intel is back again, this time with their Coffee Lake Z370 CPUs. These are what I would call mid-to-high-end consumer processors, unlike the more enthusiast and professionally focused X299 platform.

We kick things off for today with the high-end Intel Core i7-7820X, one of the first mainstream Intel CPUs to now use 6 cores instead of their long-standing 4 core models. Not only that, but this CPU also offers up 12 threads. That puts it in line with the faster Ryzen 5 CPUs, but Intel typically have better per-core performance and higher clock speeds, so the Ryzen 7 series should be in for some fierce competition in terms of all-0out performance.

Features

Does Z370 offer much in the way of innovation? Not really, aside from some of the CPUs offering increased core counts, Z370 feels like a tribute album of songs we’ve already heard a dozen times. You can’t use the previous generation CPUs either, despite the use of the same socket. Is it a bit of a pain in the arse? Yes, but for those upgrading from a few years old systems, there’s no point looking at Z270 now, as what I would call Z270-v2 is here. Controversy of upgradability and hardware support aside, I’m here to check performance, and if that’s up to scratch, almost all is forgiven.

Just one more addition, Intel provided us with one of their lovely Optane Memory drives. This will be used on all our Intel Z370 CPU and motherboard reviews where there is compatability.

Specifications

• Cores: 6
• Threads: 12
• Base Clock: 3.7 GHz
• Max Turbo: 4.7 GHz
• Cache: 12 MB
• Max Memory Size: 64 GB
• Memory Types: DDR4 2666
• PCIe Lanes: 16
• TDP: 95W
• Optane Ready: Yes
• Lithography: 14 nm

Topics: core, cpu, i7, i7-8700K, Intel, processor, review

Support eTeknix.com

Processor Intel Core i7-8850H 6-core laptop new, price 9500 UAH

INTERNET PRICE — 400 $

The Intel Core i7-8850H is a high performance 6 core laptop processor based on Coffee Lake architecture. It operates at a frequency of 2.6 to 4.3 GHz and can process up to 12 threads simultaneously thanks to Hyper-Threading support. The chip is produced on an improved 14nm process technology, and the architecture feature is the number of cores — unlike Kaby Lake, six cores for high-end versions).

With two additional cores, the performance of the Core i7-8850H has increased by almost 50% compared to similarly clocked Kaby Lake processors (for example, Core i7-7920HQ 3. 1-4.1 GHz).

The integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 should offer better performance as its clock speed has been increased by 50 MHz.

The power consumption of the chip is 45 W, so it is suitable for large laptops with a good cooling system.

We send by New mail and Intime. Ask your questions and see other products at the lowest prices 🙂

Do not forget to leave your feedback after the purchase 🙂

Was online: Today

0003

100+ orders

• Seller Catalog
• Reviews

  162

SELLETION 1000 Interesting

2 900 9000 9000 9000 2 Delivery

Payment and guarantees

Popular manufacturers in the category Processors

Siemens

Gossard

Hewlett Packard

Lenovo

Gigabyte

Samsung

Vental

Borofone

We buy

Relays and sensors

SUPPLY SUITIONS SYSTEM OF BODITITIONS PRODUCTIONS PROSENTERS, MEFURS, DISTRITIONS, DAN

Spare parts and accessories for 3d devices

Mobile phone accessories

Travel tools

Engine cooling system 9Ol000

Motorcycle gear

Ski and snowboard clothing

TOP tags

Robot Coupe 9 food processor0003

intel core i7 3770k ivy bridge

Fcbga1170

hair dryer processors

intel 5

2011 socket processors

intel core i3 socket g2

Stagnation in the processor market on the example of the 2010 six-core Intel Core i7-980X.

This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

In 2010, I almost completely missed the information about the LGA 1366 platform, because I was sitting on a brand new, well overclocked and completely satisfied with me Phenom II X4. I read a couple of articles diagonally, set myself the verdict «expensive and redundant» and safely forgot about this platform.

Recently I came across an interesting article by Steven Walton from www.techspot.com. He compares the flagship of those times, the expensive, thousand-dollar Intel Core i7-980X with modern processors.

The most interesting thing in this article is that already in 2010, 8 years ago, the 980X made it possible to have 6 cores and 12 threads in a PC. And at the now quite relevant frequency of 4.4 GHz in overclocking.
Those same 6 cores and 12 threads, «best buy» in 2017-2018, which many people now focus on when upgrading. And with which Ryzen finally gave a kick to the monopolist feeding users with performance gains of 5-10% on new generations.

Below are the test results from the article, which show that the Intel Core i7-980X after 8 years keeps «peppy» even in conjunction with the GTX 1080 Ti. And in synthetics, in overclocking, in some places it even outperforms the i5-8600K and i7-7700K. If it had AVX instructions and a faster DDR3 in the test, the difference with the new products would be negligible.

And this is a 2010 processor! 8 years have passed, and if we take the same time period from the past history of processor development, we will see not just a strong gap in performance, but an abyss. Even the Core 2 Quad Q6600, which brought 4 cores to home PCs, came out only 3 years before 980X, in 2007. And for an ordinary, budget PC, the Q6600 is relevant even now, after almost 13 years!

Rewind the period of 8 years from 2010. In 2002, even the Athlon 64 was not yet released, then Pentium 4 Northwood and Athlon XP Thoroughbred ruled the roost. The difference in performance between them and the i7-980X should no longer be measured in percentages, but in orders of magnitude. A huge gap in productivity, not even an abyss, but an abyss.

Let’s rewind another 8 years and find ourselves in 1994. Pentium with frequencies from 90 MHz to 100 MHz and AMD Am486, also a huge performance gap. You can rewind in the same way in 1986 and 1978. Exactly the same gap.
As sad as it is to admit, the era of Moore’s law has come to an end. And the saddest thing is that the technological limit coincided with the monopolization of the market.

Feeling of stagnation and swamp. If AMD Ryzen were not so successful, ordinary users would now buy all the same 4 cores and 8 threads of the next «Lake» with a performance increase of 5-7%. In terms of price, monopoly yields even more terrible results, just look at AMD’s other competitor, Nvidia, with unheard of prices for magic rays and very little performance gain.

Well, now I’m finishing with grumbling and here are the actual tests of the Core i7-980X from Steven Walton.

This is the ancient 32nm Gulftown, and while 45nm Bloomfield processors are widely known and tested many times against modern processors, especially the Core i7-920, Gulftown’s six-core processors have never received much attention.

Its six cores run at a base frequency of 3.3 GHz and overclock to 3.6 GHz depending on workload. Although it was designed to work with DDR3-1066 memory, it could also work with much higher frequencies of DDR3 memory.
And given that the LGA1366 socket was part of Intel’s high-performance desktop platform at the time, it was offered support for three-channel memory in favor of the more standard two-channel.

In short, the Core i7-980X was a beast. The best you could buy in a desktop PC. But how will he show himself after 8 years? To find out, I’m going to compare it to a whole bunch of modern processors, including the budget Ryzen 3 2200G.

And it’s interesting to see how the 2010 flagship desktop processor compares to 2018’s most affordable Ryzen. Also added to the tests were first and second generation Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 processors, as well as several Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake processors.

The Core i7-980X has been tested at nominal as well as overclocked at 4. 4 GHz. I have six sticks of 2 GB DDR3-1600 MHz memory and this is the best I have for this test. So let’s see how the first Intel processor with six cores will perform in 2018…

First we have the SiSoftware memory bandwidth test, and here you can clearly see the advantage of high-speed DDR4 memory. With only 23 GB/s memory bandwidth 980X will be severely limited in tests.

The Cinebench R15 isn’t particularly sensitive to memory, and as a result the 980X performed quite well here. However, per-core performance is rather weak, and even at 4.4 GHz it is well below what the 2200G core produces.
In fact, the single thread performance of the 980X was 8% slower than the 2200G and 17% slower than the 2200G when overclocked.
Compared to a modern 6-core/12-thread Ryzen processor such as the 2600X, 980X is 30% slower.

Next we have a V-Ray test. Here, the 980X is much slower than we might expect due to the complete lack of AVX instructions.

V-Ray is a perfect example of this, as the 980X is only able to compete against the 2200G, with a processor with only 30% of the threads that the Core i7 has. Overclocking the 980X allows us to get ahead of the 2200G, but we only get a 7% reduction in rendering time.

Now let’s move on to video editing performance with PCMark 10. Ryzen 3 beats Core i7-9 here80X, both at nominal and overclocked. The AMD processor was 7% faster, and while that advantage diminishes when both processors are overclocked, the budget quad-core is 3% faster.

PCMark 10’s gaming physics test takes advantage of multi-core processors and does not use the AVX instruction set that was missing on the older Core i7 model. As a result, the 980X can rival the Core i5-8400 nominally and the 8600K and 7700K overclocked, but is still slower than the Ryzen 5 1600 and much slower than the newer Ryzen 5 2600.

Now we have a 7-zip test and here the Core i7-980X performs very well, compared to more modern 6-core/12-thread processors like the Ryzen 5 1600, it was only 11 % slower. At the same time, in overclocking, he was almost able to catch up with the Ryzen 5 2600. This is a good result despite the fact that the Ryzen processors were not overclocked.

Performance in Corona is not bad and here the 4-core Ryzen 3 2200G is completely defeated.

Blender is another application that uses AVX instructions, and as we saw with V-Ray, the Core i7-980X suffers greatly from their absence. As a result, it dropped to quad-core performance, on par with the Ryzen 3 2200G. Overclocking helped a little, but it’s not what we expected from a 12-thread processor at over 4 GHz.

Handbrake also uses AVX, and again we find that the 980X is only able to take on the quad-core Ryzen 3 2200G. This is much slower than today’s 6 core/12 thread processors.

Now it’s gaming time, and we can see that despite the threads and great clock speed advantage, the 980X isn’t much faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G. Sure, it was 25% faster when overclocked, which is a noteworthy boost, but to be honest, we expected more in a heavy game.

However, the 980X performs well in Battlefield 1, outperforming the 2200G by 36% when both processors are overclocked. And the overclocked 980X is not much slower than the Ryzen 5 1600.

However, most games are not as heavy as Battlefield 1 and Ashes of the Singularity, and we see a good example of this when testing in Far Cry 5. Here, the 2200G is 8% faster than the 980X. Overclocking brought the 980X back into the lead, but it was still slower than the R5 1600.

At the end we have Warhammer: Vermintide 2 and here the 980X is 25% faster than the 2200G when comparing overclocked results. And 18% slower than the Ryzen 5 2600.

Now the total system power consumption; and note that these figures include the power consumption of the GTX 1080 Ti graphics card. Here we see a Ryzen 3 2200G system consuming 315W and 9The 80X has a 55% higher power consumption of 489W. After overclocking, the system on the 980X showed 64% more consumption than the overclocked 2200G.