Hi, does anyone have an idea when Nehalem may arrive? It would be nice if we had a Nehalem sticky post, providing all the latest info on it.

Decided to hold off of my build and wait...not in that big a hurry, so I guess I can wait. Of course, I want to build sometime this year. Damn these UNKNOWN arrival dates !

Well Nerds , I look forward to hearing from you soon.

NERDS ROCK!

i'm also considering waiting, depending on how long it's gonna take for nehalem to come. i heard somewhere it's coming sometime in Q3 '08, but i've also heard that only the high-end nehalem cpu will be coming in Q4 '08. so i'm not too sure what's happening

wierd

Anywho, I've heard Q3-Q4 08'

But you never know with the market and AMD acting as major factors in the release.

that's a good point. intel may delay nehalem due to the lack of competition. they don't really need to release anything new if there's no competition.

^Agreed. Remember what happened with the Penryns?

exactly

Any Nehalem links? I also wonder if they'll be a quad-core version soon.

Thanks for the quick responses, guys. I appreciate your time.

Gotta run for now...keep at it for me.

there's definitely going to be a quad core cpu. and it's going to be native quad core, instead of the 2 E6600's basically stuck together and called the Q6600 . supposedly there's also going to be an octo-core cpu.

That's the fly in the ointment. Intel has delayed the Penryns, the X48 motherboard, and more because of no competition, also called no reason for them to release newer tech and only have themselves to compete with. Some rumors have floated around that they are having some chip problems as well, similar in idea to AMD's Phenoms, and they are holding back until the problems get fixed. And since there is no competition, there is no need to hurry. So when does Nehalem come out; Q4, or maybe next year some time? Who knows.

Of course, if it is the lack of competition that's causing the delay, then we are seeing some of the prophecies in the AMD side coming true; that without competition, Intel has no compelling reason to release new products and can end the cycle of cheap CPUs, leaving only more expensive ones in the future. I want the X48 to come out, along with a new quad to stick into it! And I don't want to wait for six more months or something.

This is all true. Plsu if Intel just kept on pumping away and AMD couldn't catch up AMD might not last and Intel does not want that. If AMD were in Intels position they wouldn't want it either.

If Nehalem stays on schedule it is set for roughly the same time this November for their Uber-mega-killer high end and Q1 09 for the mainstream parts.

i really hope they release it sometime this year. I don't wanna have to spend another year or 2 on my P4 system, and i'm not sure i wanna buy a core 2 system at some point this year because it's going to be ridiculously out-dated quite fast... tough decision for me

If you get a X48 with a Yorkie in it, it may be technically outdated in a year or so, but it will still run everything fine for years to come. Think about it. Vista and DX10 have been out for a year now. How much software do you see that requires either Vista or DX10? It will be years before software comes out that will totally leave XP and DX9 behind, so if you bought a X48/Yorkie combo, it will work for many years.

I mainly want the X48/Yorkie because one of my computers is on its last legs. I keep wondering when it will be that I try to start it and it doesn't start. Its too old to think about updating, so it will be a complete replacement when the time comes, and I don't want to replace it with something that will be outdated in a month.

This is all I could find about the future release of Nehalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehal [...] hitecture)

that is a good point. just because it's not the latest and greatest doesn't mean it's not capable of running programs for years to come. after all i have survived 5 years on a P4 havent i?

Last time I've check it was late 2008; basically Q4 2008.

But with the delay of Yorkville, Intel will most likely delay the Nehalem to Q1 or Q2 2009. So you are looking at up to another 16 months.

me too....

There's little reason for Intel to hold back on Penryn. They have to have the 45 nm tooling and process set up and at least somewhat ready to make chips in some volume already if they are shipping much of anything made on the process. This means that Intel has already sunk all of the costs into 45 nm already. The equipment is already bought and the R&D necessary to get the process up and going has also been spent already. Penryn, Wolfdale, and Yorkfield, and Harpertown are smaller dies and thus will statistically yield better and be less expensive to produce than the 65 nm units, meaning that it's cheaper for Intel to make a 45 nm chip than a 65 nm one. Also, Intel can migrate chipsets and such to 65 nm and move them off the old 90 nm tooling, resulting in smaller chipset dies that run cooler and cost less to make. Plus, Intel can sell the old 90 nm tooling or use it to make other ICs. Any way you slice it, it's nothing but a winning situation for Intel to stop making 65 nm CPUs and start making 45 nm CPUs as soon as they can.

Now with Nehalem/Bloomfield/whatever the other code names are, it might make sense to hold back on full-scale production and release if the competition is not there. The tooling is already being utilized by the Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield/Harpertown generation and these chips are smaller and less expensive to make than the much bigger Nehalems will be. Intel would just be competing with itself and rendering their current lines of CPUs obsolete and unnecessarily killing profits. Also, the more 45 nm Core 2s Intel can run through their 45 nm tooling, the easier it will be to run Nehalems through there as the process will be much more mature. They are NOT rendering their 65 nm CPUs obsolete with the introduction of the 45 nm units as the 45 nm CPUs are by and large identical to the 65 nm units and more or less interchangeable in the market. (I'm talking about OEMs and such here, not enthusiasts. The 45 nm CPUs *do* render the 65 nm ones obsolete as they overclock better.) Performance clock-for-clock is within 5%, power consumption isn't all that much different, and the range of clock speeds is similar as well.

This sounds more likely. Putting four cores on a single die is a complex proposition and it's no surprise that Intel has run into problems as well. They also don't have nearly as much experience in dealing with integrated memory controllers and point-to-point interconnects as AMD does, which probably makes it harder as well. Yes, the prototype PIII Celeron "Timna" had an IMC and the 386SL had a memory controller on-package (but not in-die). But that does not hold a candle to the five years and millions of K8s and K10s that AMD has had experience with. Intel luckily has the luxury of being able to wait and get everything sort