Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

10.2ghz Nehalem

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 31, 2006 6:12:56 PM

Quote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=7481


WTF?!?!?!?

are they serious?!?!?


SITUATION CRITICAL: CORE MELTDOWN IMMINENT.

Just imagine the heat dissipation. People will blast The Inquirer for this, but back then they were just regurgitating what Intel was touting.

Nehalem is still in development; slated for 2009 release. Might be a whole different animal by now though.
Related resources
December 31, 2006 6:16:13 PM

Quote:
I am surprised that they said nehelam back then.


LOL
December 31, 2006 6:21:38 PM

lol...thats alll i have to say
December 31, 2006 6:25:35 PM

Believe it or not Intel Does have a ~10Ghz CPU will release.
Its called a Q6600 because if you do the calculation they've achieved the Nehelam limit (2.4Ghz x Quad(4))=9.6Ghz Equivalent ??
am i right or what?

Quote:
The first Nehalem is supposed to appear at 9.60GHz


Otherwise 10.64Ghz Has already been achieved
(2.66Ghz x Quad(4))=10.64Ghz Equivalent ??
December 31, 2006 6:28:30 PM

I bet if AMD hadn't been handing them their butts for the past few years, we would have had a 5.2 ghz prescott, dissipating 500 watts of heat...

Thank goodness for competition!
December 31, 2006 6:29:51 PM

Quote:
Believe it or not Intel Does have a ~10Ghz CPU will release.
Its called a Q6600 because if you do the calculation they've achieved the Nehelam limit (2.4Ghz x Quad(4))=9.6Ghz Equivalent ??
am i right or what?

The first Nehalem is supposed to appear at 9.60GHz


Ya... you're right, but that's a pretty cheap way to get it. :wink:
December 31, 2006 6:33:28 PM

soo whats the deal on 2007...i heard ddr3 going to be on intel chipsets?

what else....like 4xxx series core 2 duo....4mb cached 6 series....

what did i miss?
December 31, 2006 6:37:18 PM

Quote:
Believe it or not Intel Does have a ~10Ghz CPU will release.
Its called a Q6600 because if you do the calculation they've achieved the Nehelam limit (2.4Ghz x Quad(4))=9.6Ghz Equivalent ??
am i right or what?

The first Nehalem is supposed to appear at 9.60GHz


Ya... you're right, but that's a pretty cheap way to get it. :wink:

Isn't the 4x4 with 2 K8L Chips just another way of getting a (8)Oct-Core?

K8L< Will be AMD's Crowning achievement in the last few years besides being the first on Docket with a 64-Bit Native CPU series
So 4x4 on K8 Arc isn't the Golden Child, but with K8L, 4x4 Will show its true colours, Oh yes With R600 and AMD 4x4 Dual K8L Rig will be the "Lion of the Jungle"
December 31, 2006 6:51:34 PM

Nehalem was originally going to be the next P4 architecture. Obviously not anymore.

Nehalem also sounds like some kinda gun from Half-Life 2. Totally kickass.
December 31, 2006 6:55:06 PM

Quote:
Believe it or not Intel Does have a ~10Ghz CPU will release.
Its called a Q6600 because if you do the calculation they've achieved the Nehelam limit (2.4Ghz x Quad(4))=9.6Ghz Equivalent ??
am i right or what?

The first Nehalem is supposed to appear at 9.60GHz


Ya... you're right, but that's a pretty cheap way to get it. :wink:

Isn't the 4x4 with 2 K8L Chips just another way of getting a (8)Oct-Core?

K8L< Will be AMD's Crowning achievement in the last few years besides being the first on Docket with a 64-Bit Native CPU series
So 4x4 on K8 Arc isn't the Golden Child, but with K8L, 4x4 Will show its true colours, Oh yes With R600 and AMD 4x4 Dual K8L Rig will be the "Lion of the Jungle"

ok

anyway, i don't think you can say that 4x2.4ghz equals a single 9.6 even if you were joking, because, i don't think my x2 3800 will perform like a 4ghz single core, especially on single threaded apps. Now if you have 2 threads, then maybe it would, but i dunno. :) 
December 31, 2006 7:05:14 PM

Quote:
Believe it or not Intel Does have a ~10Ghz CPU will release.
Its called a Q6600 because if you do the calculation they've achieved the Nehelam limit (2.4Ghz x Quad(4))=9.6Ghz Equivalent ??
am i right or what?

You're kidding, right?
December 31, 2006 7:10:22 PM

Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 

Any and All THGidiots(including me) should know that 4Cores @ 2.66Ghz Means X4 the processing capacity, not X4 the speed :roll: .
December 31, 2006 7:13:28 PM

Holy sh!t, don't do these things any more, I almost had a heart attack. I am waiting for a 2.2GHz X2 4200+ and the idea of a 10.2G CPU made me sick. :lol: 
December 31, 2006 7:13:31 PM

Quote:
Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 


I was hoping that that was the case... :lol: 
December 31, 2006 7:18:46 PM

Quote:
Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 


I was hoping that that was the case... :lol: 
Yes, that way they got almost to a 8GHz netburst CPU; the Pentium E 965 (2X3.72GHz) :D 
December 31, 2006 7:21:29 PM

Quote:
Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 


I was hoping that that was the case... :lol: 
Yes, that way they got almost to a 8GHz netburst CPU; the Pentium E 965 (2X3.72GHz) :D 

I meant that he was joking, but yeah, it would have been nice to see performance that added like that. A linear performance increase by adding more cores... Isn't that the idea behind reverse-hyperthreading? Or is that just a big joke everyone gets a good laugh from?
December 31, 2006 7:24:40 PM

Oh yeah, well, I'm angling to get a 2xX5355 quad-core system so that's gonna be 2.66GHz x 8 = 21.28GHz. :p 
December 31, 2006 7:26:39 PM

m25 just coded :lol:  .
December 31, 2006 7:38:29 PM

Quote:
m25 just coded :lol:  .


Oh, and did I mention that I'm gonna OC in liquid nitrogen to 35GHz? :lol: 
December 31, 2006 7:40:54 PM

Quote:
m25 just coded :lol:  .


Oh, and did I mention that I'm gonna OC in liquid nitrogen to 35GHz? :lol: 

Hey, that sounds like fun! Better make a video of it and put some funky techno music behind it. [/THG video reference]
December 31, 2006 7:43:27 PM

at least you can wrap virtual fish with the dinquirer
December 31, 2006 7:43:54 PM

Quote:
Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 


I was hoping that that was the case... :lol: 
Yes, that way they got almost to a 8GHz netburst CPU; the Pentium E 965 (2X3.72GHz) :D 

I meant that he was joking, but yeah, it would have been nice to see performance that added like that. A linear performance increase by adding more cores... Isn't that the idea behind reverse-hyperthreading? Or is that just a big joke everyone gets a good laugh from?
Guess it's this; if one was to make say a dual core that works a single large core, he just has to (roughly) double the number of execution units, width of data buses extc. Why the heck should he split a stream of date, calculate the results on different cores and then remerge these data :?: :!:
hardware implementation of reverse HT would give the same results as actual software multithreading implementation, ~80% more performance instead of 100%; nothing special.
December 31, 2006 7:57:00 PM

Quote:
Hey, that sounds like fun! Better make a video of it and put some funky techno music behind it. [/THG video reference]


My CPU I'm gonna be chillin'
Liquid Nitro I'm gonna be spillin'
Gonna hit ova thirty Gigahertz
Be OCing that sucka til it hurts
All the hos'll be cravin' my tool
'Cuz I'm The OC King Pimp, Fool!
I'll lean back, take a hit off my bong
Then I'll play octocore hyperspeed Pong

8)
December 31, 2006 8:03:32 PM

Quote:
Hey, that sounds like fun! Better make a video of it and put some funky techno music behind it. [/THG video reference]


My CPU I'm gonna be chillin'
Liquid Nitro I'm gonna be spillin'
Gonna hit ova thirty Gigahertz
Be OCing that sucka til it hurts
All the hos'll be cravin' my tool
'Cuz I'm The OC King Pimp, Fool!
I'll lean back, take a hit off my bong
Then I'll play octocore hyperspeed Pong

8)

Thats a good one. I give it a hearty LOL.
December 31, 2006 8:26:27 PM

I need some time alone with your sig.
December 31, 2006 8:27:41 PM

Quote:
I need some time alone with your sig.


You can have her when I'm done with her. You're welcome to sloppy seconds. 8)
January 1, 2007 12:34:55 AM

A 10.2ghz C2D would be awesome, although intel would have to completly redesign there hsf since the thing would be hotter then a P4 running under load on the sun. Does the muliti go that high?
January 1, 2007 12:45:55 AM

I'm sure its physically possible to hit that with a C2D, but you'd have to have one very very specialized piece of equipment with a VERY flexible voltage controller, and a VERY flexible clock generator. Even then, you probably couldn't use the proc, as the rest of the system wouldn't be able to keep up, especially the ram at those clock speeds.

Not to mention it would take a nuclear cooling tower to get it below the boiling point.
January 1, 2007 12:54:05 AM

Somebody should cross breed a C2D with a Pentium D, that way its just as fast and energy effienct as a C2D, with the ability to hit over 7ghz like the Pentium D.

Then breed a Cell processor with something Via so you have a low heat cpu thats environmentally friendly, has 8 cores and insanly high floating point performance.

Then breed the Via/Cell with the C2D/PD, so you'll have a really fast, really oc'able, cool running, environmentally friendly, 8 core, super cpu with great floating point performance!
January 1, 2007 1:00:43 AM

Quote:
Somebody should cross breed a C2D with a Pentium D, that way its just as fast and energy effienct as a C2D, with the ability to hit over 7ghz like the Pentium D.

Then breed a Cell processor with something Via so you have a low heat cpu thats environmentally friendly, has 8 cores and insanly high floating point performance.

Then breed the Via/Cell with the C2D/PD, so you'll have a really fast, really oc'able, cool running, environmentally friendly, 8 core, super cpu with great floating point performance!


Why not just make a K8L Hump a Pentium, And get a Super Overclockable Quad Core, And get two of those Quad Core K8L/PD Cores to sit on a 4X4 and "Technically" have a Oct-Core??
January 1, 2007 1:11:56 AM

Quote:
Why not just make a K8L Hump a Pentium, And get a Super Overclockable Quad Core, And get two of those Quad Core K8L/PD Cores to sit on a 4X4 and "Technically" have a Oct-Core??


If your going to do that you might as well slip an R600 a ruffe and let the 8800gtx have at it, then breed your oct-core with my R688gtx, then get the baby of that one in a room with my Cell/Via/PD/C2D/, so you would have a mutant super Fusion amd/sony/intel/via super duper uber cpu.

slip a Montecito itanium in there somewhere so it has a crap load of cache.
January 1, 2007 1:16:17 AM

Quote:
Why not just make a K8L Hump a Pentium, And get a Super Overclockable Quad Core, And get two of those Quad Core K8L/PD Cores to sit on a 4X4 and "Technically" have a Oct-Core??


If your going to do that you might as well slip an R600 a ruffe and let the 8800gtx have at it, then breed your oct-core with my R688gtx, then get the baby of that one in a room with my Cell/Via/PD/C2D/, so you would have a mutant super Fusion amd/sony/intel/via super duper uber cpu.

slip a Montecito itanium in there somewhere so it has a crap load of cache.
All of this CPU Merging happening at a measurement of 32 Nm Of course, while the GPU's are happening at 65nm.

I hope that the R600 Chip is made at 65nm but we all know that it's made at 80nm. AMD has great happenings at R600 in the ATI camp and the K8L at the AMD camp.
January 1, 2007 1:39:02 AM

Quote:
Why not just make a K8L Hump a Pentium, And get a Super Overclockable Quad Core, And get two of those Quad Core K8L/PD Cores to sit on a 4X4 and "Technically" have a Oct-Core??


If your going to do that you might as well slip an R600 a ruffe and let the 8800gtx have at it, then breed your oct-core with my R688gtx, then get the baby of that one in a room with my Cell/Via/PD/C2D/, so you would have a mutant super Fusion amd/sony/intel/via super duper uber cpu.

slip a Montecito itanium in there somewhere so it has a crap load of cache.

Bolt it to a 350 and you have an 8 second speed machine!
January 1, 2007 1:46:52 AM

Then a tree, a nuclear sub, and an F-22. then you have an organic, nuclear powered, amphibious, flying, super fast cpu/gpu with god knows how many cores that has insanely high floating point performance, runs cool, oc's like nothing before it, has a crapload of cache, pretty much the fastest most powerful peice of computing hardware and earth, that can also shoot missiles.
a c 99 à CPUs
January 1, 2007 2:03:32 AM

Quote:
Of course, I've been around THGFourms too long to be serious about 2.66 x 4= 10.64Ghz :p 


I was hoping that that was the case... :lol: 
Yes, that way they got almost to a 8GHz netburst CPU; the Pentium E 965 (2X3.72GHz) :D 

I meant that he was joking, but yeah, it would have been nice to see performance that added like that. A linear performance increase by adding more cores... Isn't that the idea behind reverse-hyperthreading? Or is that just a big joke everyone gets a good laugh from?

That's the idea behind something like MPI (Message Parsing Interface), a program that spawns multiple processes that work in parallel on one computation. If your algorithm is able to be run with mpirun, then it does act like it has "reverse hyperthreading" as the performance scales pretty linearly with more cores, provided that your data busses are fast enough.
January 1, 2007 2:15:09 AM

Quote:
Then a tree, a nuclear sub, and an F-22. then you have an organic, nuclear powered, amphibious, flying, super fast cpu/gpu with god knows how many cores that has insanely high floating point performance, runs cool, oc's like nothing before it, has a crapload of cache, pretty much the fastest most powerful peice of computing hardware and earth, that can also shoot missiles.


Not just any missles, but ICBMs! Quite the machine we'd have there...
January 1, 2007 2:20:00 AM

So, does reverse hyperthreading actually exist? Or is it just something being worked on? Or is it just a hypothetical technology? I'm kinda confused as to whats going on with it.
a c 99 à CPUs
January 1, 2007 2:29:08 AM

There is technically no such thing as "reverse hyperthreading.' RHT as rumored was some sort of ISA extension or chip architecture tweak that made a chip execute normal, single-threaded code in parallel if by magic. There is something called speculative threading that allows for a "guessing read-ahead" kind of function that allows a second core to do some possible work on single-threaded code IIRC. But as far as I know, speculative threading != reverse hyperthreading and neither is in any chip roadmap.

What I mentioned above was a software method to make code multithreaded. RHT as rumored was a purely hardware solution.
January 1, 2007 7:32:12 PM

Quote:
That's the idea behind something like MPI (Message Parsing Interface), a program that spawns multiple processes that work in parallel on one computation. If your algorithm is able to be run with mpirun, then it does act like it has "reverse hyperthreading" as the performance scales pretty linearly with more cores, provided that your data busses are fast enough

When for, say a dual core, you double the bus width or speed, then you have to wonder if is it worth to build two independent cores and the answer is NO; you just have to add independent computational units to one core. True multicore, like we know it today is just a somehow messy shortcut AMD and Intel have taken; they started from one traditional core and then just added more like that. That's why performance does not scale linearly with the number of cores; A true multicore not far from a dual die CPU (like Kentsfield) of dual socket platform like the QuadFX; it's just an artifice.
!