Intel Releases 10 Core I-7 Processors

Yeah, but shipping is FREE!!
 
You would have to do some serious processing to get one of these..... 

cclarry
Check them out here...WAY expensive
http://promotions.newegg....cwMEBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==

That is my summation of Intel. I wish AMD was more relevant and Intel prices could be more competitive.

Jim Roseberry
The 6950X is a hard sell at $1750. 

Video/film editors/production people working to tight deadlines, or someone trying to crack seriously heavy-duty encryption the brute force way and get a result within the lifetime of this universe might find it attractive I suppose.

Me, I'll be waiting until the price drops a bit I think. What I do doesn't even push my sig cpu that hard.

tlw
Video/film editors/production people working to tight deadlines, or someone trying to crack seriously heavy-duty encryption the brute force way and get a result within the lifetime of this universe might find it attractive I suppose.

At $1750, many folks will choose to avoid over-clocking.
At stock speed, you'll find that it's not an improvement over a 5820k running at 4.4GHz (which costs about $1400 less.   
 
As far as video rendering (for something like Cinema 4D):
You'd be better off building a second machine with another 5820k running at 4.4GHz... and using TeamRender.
You'd have 12 physical cores (24 processing threads) running at a much higher clock-speed.

The pricing appears to be because of their server processors. Intel really charges a ton of their big chips in servers because, well, they can. AMD is uncompetitive so they can charge a ton. They don't want their HEDT processors to cut in to that hence the big price.

kitekrazy1
The price rarely drops on those. I doubt they expect high volume sales. The only real point for something like this is bragging rights. Those extra cores would be handy in rendering video.
 
I went away from AMD because of power consumption. This Intel behemoth uses 140 watts. For that kind of dough I'd rather buy an instrument.

As Jim says, they'd be even more handy if they ran a bit faster.

As for power consumption, I remember building a PC around a Pentium D "Presler" processor not long after they were introduced what, ten or so years ago. Quite an improvement on the original Pentium, but that cpu drew something in the region of 130 watts to run just two cores. Keeping that running even remotely quietly was quite a challenge, especially as parts for quiet computing weren't as available as they are now.

What persuaded me to move away from AMD-based PCs a good many years ago was that Intel, who up to that point had been second place in the flat-out speed and speed per buck stakes, started making processors that simply out-performed AMD for not much more money. Also Windows and a lot of software coders began to take advantage of features Intel had and AMD hadn't. I don't like that one manufacturer has an effective cpu and architecture monopoly but that's the world we find ourselves in, for the time being at least.

Cost to performance ratio....if you actually do the "Math"...
I'll take AMD any day.

It's not that AMD CPU's aren't as powerful, it's the fact that 
99% of code is written, and optimized, for the Intel platform.

That is the primary area that gives them "The performance Edge".
AMD must "Mimic" the Intel platform internally and, therefore, 
suffers...it's not a "level" playing field...but AMD certainly does 
a good job...I'll put my system up against an i7 anyday...and,
as I said, probably paid 1/4 of what the i7 person paid...

cclarry
Cost to performance ratio....if you actually do the "Math"...
I'll take AMD any day.

It's not that AMD CPU's aren't as powerful, it's the fact that 
99% of code is written, and optimized, for the Intel platform.

That is the primary area that gives them "The performance Edge".
AMD must "Mimic" the Intel platform internally and, therefore, 
suffers...it's not a "level" playing field...but AMD certainly does 
a good job...I'll put my system up against an i7 anyday...and,
as I said, probably paid 1/4 of what the i7 person paid...

  In some situations that is not the case.  Those AMD FX9 series which clock up to 5ghz probably lose value. Those are 140 watts. Depending on what power glutten video card you put in you have to start looking at PSUs around 750W just to make sure you have some overhead. Any AMD processor around $250 I start looking at Intel.
  The FX 8 series are a great value and the overclock well and around $150.  I have a FX6300 that's a 6 core, uses 90 Watts and it was $100.  I haven't really messed with it as a DAW yet.