Intel Core 2 'Octo'

Nehalem will be a native 4 core design with a form of hyper threading, so 8 threads total. Later on they will release a 8 core version which will have a total of 16 threads.

Nehalem is a new architecture, which will be introduced in the extreme edition flavor at the end of 2008, with early 2009 being the desktop counterparts. Nehalem also incorporates a new IMC and Quickpath interconnect, so all motherboards upgradability die at the end of 2008. Nehalem will require a new socket/chipset/motherboard.

So eight core CPUs won't materialize for the Core 2 architecture?

I hope though the Nehalem will have a 775 socket version that will work on the p965 motherboard. Like the Allendale or "Wolfdale-3M" with a high multiplier!
(with at least 4 cores please)

After some research, there doesn't seem to be ANY socket 775 Nehalem. Too bad..
It also seems only DDR3 will be used in the Nehalem generation.
So just get a good Yorkfield if you don't plan to upgrade for new everything anytime soon.

you wont be seeing any 8 core c2x's any time soon unless they bring out a native quad core which currently isnt in mis and even if they do it will just be to native quads (which arnt developed yet) glued together.

which bring me onto my next point you can get 8 core pcs, you need to get a server MB like the mac pro (which are sh*t due to the 7300gt they rack) or the HP workstation which are really quite good(expensive) and have 2 quad cores, or you can wait until intel release their duel proc board for the consumer market which will support SLi and LGA775

Yea.. DDR3 only for Nehalem.

Sockets are LGA1336 for Highend Desktop. 1x Quickpath, 4 Cores, IMC, 8 threads, Tri-Channel DDR3.

LGA1160 for Mainstream.

No quickpath (1x PCIe16 or 2x PCIe8), Dual Channel DDR3, 4 cores and 2 core variants, 8 and 4 threads, IMC.

This might be the killer for Nehalem. Will LGA1336 be like the Skulltrail board where only QX variants are released? If so, I'd end up on LGA1160, which might limit your options for processors. This is why I really want to see AMD come back... I'd rather have a 45nm AMD 4x4 than this crap.. Multiple sockets per processor = bad idea, confusing for consumers, and ties you into a limited line of processors.

I get Dual and Quad Channel.. Not sure how Tri-Channel is even going to work. But yes, 3 channels.

Quad would be each memory bank gets a Core.. Tri.. wth?

Agreed and QFT

But will the 8-core CPU be some form of MCM? If not, it may very well be 10h Launch, Version 2.0 as an 8-core chip for Intel with the IMC and such will be at least as big of a hurdle as the 10h was for AMD. But if Intel plays its Nehalem IMC/CSI design hand right, they could have the design allow for the possibility of MCMs and use this to further gain traction in the server and HPC market.

On the tri and quad channel memory:
I think it is impratical and expensive since the greater no. of memory slots will occupy more real estate on the motherboard. End users will also have to buy more memory modules to fill up a 3 (or 4) memory channels.

I'm certain that BOINC can handle 16 threads simultaneously. Sixteen.
But we will have to wait a while before games can even make use of 8 threads.

Isn't nehalem LGA 715? Skulltrail is supposed to be a dual socket 8-core solution, and there's nothing stopping intel from doing that with nehalem. But I doubt they're going to get 8 cores on a single chip in time for nehalem to come around.

Just get a Sun T2. You get 64 threads in 1 processor. No need to wait.

Monolithic octo core 'Beckton' 45nm CPU is due out in 2009 for MP servers. In 2008 they've got Dunnington, a monolithic hex core CPU based on Core 2 that will fit into the current Clarksboro chipset.

Well look at the Geforce8 original series - 8800GTS with 320 bit, and the GTX with 384 bit memory interface - the new intels with 192 bit (3 x 64-bit channels) - its not like a hdd array where you need pairs etc and cores dont get dedicated memory channels or otherwise one core needing data from another core's memory would take time to find and get data etc - its all directed via one wider (3 channel/192 bit) bus.

LOL what happened to all the AMD fans cheering at monolithic quad cores?

As for an 8 core Core 2 - i think that will strain the FSB to the limits, as the current quad already has to comminicate via the fsb for cores 1/2 -> 3/4 etc, doubling the cores will not kill performance, but the gain by doubling the cores will be minimal as the limits of the architecture of the FSB come in, and communication via the aging FSB will become a nightmare.

As for the Sun T2 with "64 threads" - different market, different arena, windows if it was even able to use the cpu, would run slow as 64 slow treads unfortunatly are no match to 4 fast threads, we even see it today where a faster clocked dual cpu can take out a slower quad core - it all comes down to software design and support.

You could be right here. The 8 cores will have to compete for memory bandwidth and CPU performance will be crippled.

Maybe this is where motherboards with DDR3 support (present on some P35 and X38 motherboards) can finally flex their memory bandwidth muscle. DDR2 memory may not be a wise choice for Core 2 Octo CPUs, if they are ever going to be released.

A reason why Intel may not want to release a Core 2 Octo CPU is becuase their current CPUs already greatly outperform those from AMD. They see no need to create a eight core CPU for the time being, and probably also don't want the Core 2 Octo CPU to cannibalise their Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo sales. <--- Am I right here?