Now, since TheInq is known for their news inaccuracy, so take this news with grains of salt.
Quote :
...If we compare the initial top Core 2 launch part, the 2.93GHz Conroe, vs 3.73GHz Presler, the last Netburst part in the same process, we're talking a speed increase between 30 per cent. And over 80 per cent right there and then, depending on what you run - I'm not counting some of those rare benchmarks where the difference was more than double....
...Just think the Harpertown benchmarks scaled to 3.6GHz, then multiplied by 1.3 to 1.8 depending on the case.
Wow, way to state the obvious inquirer.
A 5 year old could have made that guess, who knows one of the editors kids probably did. I wish people would quit reading rumour sites, then we could watch them die and never hear of them again.
James
The reason its so fast is that the Nehalem architecture finally gets an integrated memory controller and does away completely with FSB. They're moving to a similar idea to AMD's hypertransport with a (much) higher-bandwidth bus called Intel QuickPath Interconnect.
The FSB has been a massive bottleneck for years, good riddance.
It will be interesting to see what the desktop variants will do as I believe those will be initially released w/o an IMC and a "bottlenecked" FSB....
Very true. The desktop variants will not have an IMC, but still rely on FSB. Only the server and maybe high end enthusiast systems will be IMC.
Anyway, how many FSB bottlenecks have been seen recently with Core 2 Duo systems? I haven't had a problem with the FSB bottlenecking anything I have ran lately.
Message edited by NMDante on 10-17-2007 at 12:31:09 AM
I would venture a guess at saying that eventually the IMC will go across the line but probably not until late 2009, my one prediction for this particular processor line - and that will depend on how AMD can compete....
I would venture a guess at saying that eventually the IMC will go across the line but probably not until late 2009, my one prediction for this particular processor line - and that will depend on how AMD can compete....
Sorry boduke, my FSB question was actually to niz, who brought up the old adage of FSB limited stuff.
If the initial desktop part is released without an IMC is it possible the a Nehalem could drop into current mainboards? with some kind of BIOS update maybe?, obviously no idea on FSB's on these or memory support either.
If they cannot drop in, then Intel is adding another layer to the already complex mainboard/chipset compatibility. One for Desktop part (excluding highend), highend desktop and server. Then we will still have the older tech around too desktop and server (conroe and penryn). Making this very confusing for the average joe.
If the initial desktop part is released without an IMC is it possible the a Nehalem could drop into current mainboards? with some kind of BIOS update maybe?, obviously no idea on FSB's on these or memory support either.
If they cannot drop in, then Intel is adding another layer to the already complex mainboard/chipset compatibility. One for Desktop part (excluding highend), highend desktop and server. Then we will still have the older tech around too desktop and server (conroe and penryn). Making this very confusing for the average joe.
I see your point with motherboard and CPU compatibility, but the average Joe won't care, since s/he will most likely buy a pre-built system, and not piece part a computer. But I read somewhere that there will be a socket change for Nehalem in mid-late 2008.
Quote :
Intel processors from the Nehalem generation that are scheduled to appear in H2 2008 will exist in two modifications: Socket H (LGA 715) and Socket B (LGA 1336). This difference in the number of pins is determined by Intel’s decision to offer two CPU modifications: with the integrated three-channel memory controller and without it.
X-bit Labs I still take it with a grain of salt, since H2'08 is quite a bit away.
Also, since Nehalem based products won't be available until H2 '08, early '09, so by then, the Conroes might be replaced by Penryn, and then Nehalem will start to trickle in.
Ok everyone here must be asleep as no one said anything about the AMD blunder.
Quote :
On a lighter note, a rumour circulated here that AMD mistakenly delivered 500 of its new CPU parts to one customer but forgot the charge. Intel wags promptly suggested it was the largest AMD delivery they heard of this year to date.
Thats about a 100,000~500,000$ screw up depending on which of their new CPU they forgot to charge.
Message edited by elbert on 10-17-2007 at 01:14:44 AM
So Intel finally figured out a integrated memory controller.....hmmm...
???
And...what is your point? IMC or FSB, both are nowhere near saturated, so what's the big deal about IMC for desktop? You get a better memory benchmark score? Yay?!? Exactly what desktop program/application will get a huge boost using an IMC over FSB? Please, tell us. Sure, it will help with server apps, but who cares about it for desktops? I can run multiple applications without any problems on my lowly FSB based motherboard system.
So, that means I can say "AMD finally figured out how to make a quad core on one package....hmmm..."
