The Inquirer reports:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inqu [...] -core-chip

As an AMD fan, I've wondered why AMD couldn't do quad cores at 65nm like Intel, but read somewhere that hypertransport made that unworkable. Now, isn't nehalem supposed to have Intel's version of hypertransport? Then, how does this pave the way for nehalem if it's 3 dual core CPU's in one package? Will it rely upon the fsb to communicate with memory?

All very interesting, if true. If AMD did the same, we could see six cores made from two Phenom 8xxx's in one package. Makes me think that 8 core Intel CPU's aren't that far away, even if they're the nehalem equivalent to the Pentium D or Q6600 in packaging. This will be more bad news for Phenom, unless AMD pulls a 45nm rabbit out of it's hat.

Interesting.

I'm a bit dubious about the 3 dual core Penryns claim, from all accounts Nehalem will be a 'native' design from 2 core all the way to 8 core.

It's The INQ, they get so many things wrong, I'll assume guilt until proven innocent in their case.

The thing is, that AMD dont do a quad core like Intel, as Intels Quad cores are almost a year older and still faster. !!!!!!

Im not flame baiting, this is the truth..............

Anyhow you watch, Intel will go on to 8 core, then 12... I dont think that Intel will let them selves fall behind again like they did with the Prescott / AMD 64 times.

Ive seen pictures of a 80 core processor plugged in to a socket 7 motherboard running xp, from Intel....

Just waiting for the 128 bit processor, they must be in their labs by now waiting for software to catch up.....

PS Why arent we all just running 64 bit os right now.......

Microsoft should have had xp and vista modified with major service pack with a dual kernal mode with one for compatability with the old and futurising the new applications with a 64 bit one....Nothings impossible with software...
As for the drivers have dual mode built in with far more compatability thrown in.....
Why cant software people get together and get this right

the fundamental fact is, vista should have been 64 bit only, or 32 bit only - forcing the matter

if by paving the way to nehalem, they mean, the product right before - ie the last penryn, then yes their information might be correct - but what was descrbied in that article was nothing to do with nehalem itself unless i am VERY much mistaken

Interesting... hopefully can hear mroe about this as I may hld back off one of their new penryns if this is coming out in Q3 or earlier.


Doubt it will though...

Nehalem will use native 2, 4, and 8 core designs. They will be using the same strategy as AMD then.

I not sure if I need 4 core now, six would be too much for me. I guess there are some people who could really benefit from this though

Looks like FUD.

isn't this intels grand plan to do away with sun? ie ultrasparc

I could see this. Nothing Intel has ever done has been set in stone. Changes can always happen.

The Inq has been full of it lately. I'm definitely calling BS on this.

*Edit* More info if anyone's interested:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs [...] gai394.htm

Maybe this is legit?

Toms initial review of the 45nms showed a picture that showed that 8 cores would actually fit. Im sure Intel could make a 6 core 45nm. It will fit on the die and the power usage should also be ok. The issue is the FSB on 6 cores. The FSB would probally be a bottleneck for 6 cores but I think the extra 2 cores would still add a nice performance gain.

The main thing is will Intel actually make this cpu. Right now they dont even had the mainstream quad 45nms out so Intel attempting to bring a 6 core cpu doesnt seem likely.

That link doesn't work to well for me, because I can't read Japanese.

Why not? If it works people will buy it. If they would they wouldn't bring it out the same time as the quads, they want you to buy those then have to upgrade later on.


Then of coarse buy new intel mobos to support their new ones in Q4.

Agreed.

6 cores COULD make sense when you consider the triple-channel mem interface. Yea, the point IS dumb, but hey.

But why make 6 when you can make 8?