Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nehalem

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2008 2:16:46 AM

So as some of you may or may not know, Intel is releasing a brand new architecture, called Nehalem or something. The low down is that its rumored to support up to 8 cores, faster, etc. Integrated DDR3 controller, some new rehash of hyperthreading.... And thats all I know.

So, right now I'm sitting a ye olde P4 3.0ghz Prescott, 1 gbDDR2 PC2 -4300 ram, and 7900gs. I'm about due for a CPU/Ram upgrade, considering that everything lags to hell, etc. I was thinking about getting a Q6600 and then overclocking it, as paying $600+ for a processor is a bit unrealistic at this stage, not to mention that some sources would say overclocking the 6600 would give just as good performance for a much lesser price.

So the food for thought in this thread is would I (or anyone else in my position, thinking about upgrading now) be better off waiting for the Nehalem line of products, or getting an upgrade now? I mean, how much better is Nehalem going to be? Are we going to see the clock speed increasing again not just more cores and cache? Would I be better off saving my money and upgrading later?

More about : nehalem

a c 473 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 2:27:10 AM

Consider this:

Nehalem is not expected to be released until Q1 2009; that means as late as March 2009.

The E8400 Wolfdale CPUs have recently been released, but is out of stock just about everywhere. That could be due to overwhelming demand, thus creating a shortage. This shortage will probably end in a month or two.

There will be demand for Nehalem and probably production shortages too when the CPU is released by March 2009. If March '09 is the expected release period, then don't expect the shortage of CPUs to end until May 2009.

The above assumes Intel does not decide to delay Nehalem again because AMD will have nothing to compete with.
March 3, 2008 2:31:57 AM

jaguarskx said:
Consider this:

Nehalem is not expected to be released until Q1 2009; that means as late as March 2009.

The E8400 Wolfdale CPUs have recently been released, but is out of stock just about everywhere. That could be due to overwhelming demand, thus creating a shortage. This shortage will probably end in a month or two.

There will be demand for Nehalem and probably production shortages too when the CPU is released by March 2009. If March '09 is the expected release period, then don't expect the shortage of CPUs to end until May 2009.

The above assumes Intel does not decide to delay Nehalem again because AMD will have nothing to compete with.


I was under the impression it was going to be late this year.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=4470

Quote:
The Nehalem is set to launch in Q4 of 2008


I guess maybe the "launch" is actually when they start advertising it, while it wont be alvaible to average joe till March?
Related resources
March 3, 2008 2:44:33 AM

scyle said:
I was under the impression it was going to be late this year.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=4470

Quote:
The Nehalem is set to launch in Q4 of 2008


I guess maybe the "launch" is actually when they start advertising it, while it wont be alvaible to average joe till March?


Well normally Intel releases the extreme version of the processor first, in this case it's supposed to be late this year, and a few months later they release the mainstream versions.
March 3, 2008 2:53:17 AM

Late 2008 is the launch date of Nehalem, It will be the $999 extreme edition like always. You wont see the $200-$500 versions until at best January maybe march. these also will require a new Mobo and probably DDR3.

If your MoBo can take it, get a Q6600 and 2-4 gigs of ram. That should keep your comp breathing until the new chipset, CPU, and RAM are a bit more affordable.
March 3, 2008 2:56:11 AM

I wouldn't be surprised to see multiple delays on the Nehalem platform. It will be Intel's first platform using an integrated memory controller and also their first monolithic processor with more than 2 cores. Judging from the difficulties AMD has had going from a monolithic dual core to a monolithic quad core, I would say that Intel is in for quite a challenge. At least AMD had a significant amount of prior experience with the integrated memory controller so the technological leap from the Athlon X2 to the Phenom was not as great as the technological leap from Core2 to Nehalem will be.

Intel currently has the luxury of a significant lead in market share and no real urgency to rush Nehalem onto the market. Hopefully they won't release Nehalem before the technology is ready.
March 3, 2008 3:08:04 AM

Well Intel does spend more money on R&D then AMD has to spend. Also judging from the very successful leap from Prescott to Conroe I think they will be able to pull it off. Lets just hope that by then AMD can pull its head out of its ass and at least try to compete in the performance category.
March 3, 2008 3:23:56 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
It will be Intel's first platform using an integrated memory controller


Why do people keep repeating this claim? The Intel 4004 had an integrated memory controller decades ago.

Intel's first CPU with an integrated DDR3 controller perhaps, but they have plenty of experience of building high-speed memory controllers for their chipsets. Moving it from the north bridge to the CPU is non-trivial, but it's hardly rocket science.
March 3, 2008 3:28:32 AM

Agreed on Intel having far superior resources for R&D. That will certainly increase the likelyhood of success. The leap from Prescott to Conroe was more of a natural progression though, while the leap from Peryn to Nehalem will be more like a step change. If Intel doesn't rush it onto the market I think they will succeed. I would be concerned however that at the first signs of AMD retaking any market share (which may start on the server side if the B3 Barcelonas are successful) the sales group at Intel might start screaming for Nehalem to be released as soon as possible whether engineering feels its ready or not.

My guess is that is what happened at AMD with the Phenom processors as I really can't see how the engineering group would approve of releasing a product in that state unless they were overridden by sales people. That kind of thing happens far too often at far too many companies I'm afraid.
March 3, 2008 3:38:59 AM

MarkG,

Do you seriously think that having an integrated memory controller on the 4004 chip is at all significant to the challenges of the new platform? Moreover, how many of the engineers that worked on the 4004 do you think are still employed at Intel? Very few I would guess. Intel has been using an external memory controller for the past several processor generations so this will be a significant departure from the technology they are used to dealing with. You'd be surprised how often in the engineering world those "minor" design changes end up presenting the most challenging problems.
March 3, 2008 3:44:44 AM

scyle said:
I was under the impression it was going to be late this year.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=4470

Quote:
The Nehalem is set to launch in Q4 of 2008


I guess maybe the "launch" is actually when they start advertising it, while it wont be alvaible to average joe till March?


From what I've heard, and known so far, the desktop variant of Nehalem will come in end of 2008.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13438

My personal speculation:
This will be another similar Penryn launch, where server is launched ahead of desktop variant. As of now, Intel does not need Nehalem to compete with AMD's chips (on desktop), as they're still slower in most desktop applications. In server segment however, Nehalem's native quad, IMC, and QPI interconnect will definitely benefit server performance (especially in multi-socket (MP) server).

I guess we'll see server launch first towards the end of 2008, with desktop variant scheduled to launch in Q1~Q2 of 2009.
March 3, 2008 5:32:01 AM

How much better do you guys think Nehalem will be compared to current generation quads? Not just at multithreaded apps, but single threaded as well, considering majority of stuff we all use is single threaded (for most of us at least anyway).
March 3, 2008 5:39:21 AM

scyle said:
How much better do you guys think Nehalem will be compared to current generation quads? Not just at multithreaded apps, but single threaded as well, considering majority of stuff we all use is single threaded (for most of us at least anyway).


Well, rumour has it it will be 10 - 25% quicker in single-threaded performance, and 50 - 100% quicker in multithreaded performance. Take those figures with a dose of salt you see fit. ;) 
March 3, 2008 6:01:08 AM

Lets say you were going to upgrade now, the best thing to do to future proof what you'll be buying later is DDR3. You would only have to upgrade the mobo and processor, unless you waited until things calm down after the release of Nehalem.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2008 6:39:39 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
MarkG,

Do you seriously think that having an integrated memory controller on the 4004 chip is at all significant to the challenges of the new platform? Moreover, how many of the engineers that worked on the 4004 do you think are still employed at Intel? Very few I would guess. Intel has been using an external memory controller for the past several processor generations so this will be a significant departure from the technology they are used to dealing with. You'd be surprised how often in the engineering world those "minor" design changes end up presenting the most challenging problems.


I think he was just pointing out the non-facts being thrown around!
March 3, 2008 8:29:48 AM

If you can live with a P4 now, I don't think you really need a 8 core Nehalem.
The good news is, if you can wait a year, you can get a MUCH mre future proof Nehalem system.
If you can not not wait a year, just get a cheap P35, E6400, 2 Gigs DDR2 RAM, etc. This cheap rig will blow the doors off your P4.
Like others said, don't spend a lot on a system now. When you want a Nehalem, you will need new EVERYTHING.
Don't bother with the Q6600. If you want quad-core, the Mid-range Yorkfields will be out this month and are much better chips while costing about the same. (the q6600 is an excellent chip, the Yorkies are just better and about as future-proof as you can get now). Actually, don't spend more for quad-core unless you KNOW you need it.
Also, don't spend on DDR3 now - expensive and you won't notice a speed gain. DDR3 is the future, but nothing can take advanage of it until Nehalem and by then, much better & cheaper DDR3 sticks will be out.
March 3, 2008 10:51:42 AM

jaguarskx said:
Consider this:

Nehalem is not expected to be released until Q1 2009; that means as late as March 2009.

The E8400 Wolfdale CPUs have recently been released, but is out of stock just about everywhere. That could be due to overwhelming demand, thus creating a shortage. This shortage will probably end in a month or two.

There will be demand for Nehalem and probably production shortages too when the CPU is released by March 2009. If March '09 is the expected release period, then don't expect the shortage of CPUs to end until May 2009.

The above assumes Intel does not decide to delay Nehalem again because AMD will have nothing to compete with.


Yep pencil in mid 2009 for Nehalem at mainstream prices.
March 3, 2008 11:13:37 AM

spoonboy said:
Yep pencil in mid 2009 for Nehalem at mainstream prices.


That sounds about right to me.
March 3, 2008 11:20:48 AM

blotch said:
Late 2008 is the launch date of Nehalem, It will be the $999 extreme edition like always.

I'm pretty sure Intel is testing even higher price points with its EE processors. Wasn't the last one $1299? Whatever... they're expensive!
March 3, 2008 11:55:35 AM
a c 127 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 3:24:18 PM

enewmen said:
If you can live with a P4 now, I don't think you really need a 8 core Nehalem.
The good news is, if you can wait a year, you can get a MUCH mre future proof Nehalem system.
If you can not not wait a year, just get a cheap P35, E6400, 2 Gigs DDR2 RAM, etc. This cheap rig will blow the doors off your P4.
Like others said, don't spend a lot on a system now. When you want a Nehalem, you will need new EVERYTHING.
Don't bother with the Q6600. If you want quad-core, the Mid-range Yorkfields will be out this month and are much better chips while costing about the same. (the q6600 is an excellent chip, the Yorkies are just better and about as future-proof as you can get now). Actually, don't spend more for quad-core unless you KNOW you need it.
Also, don't spend on DDR3 now - expensive and you won't notice a speed gain. DDR3 is the future, but nothing can take advanage of it until Nehalem and by then, much better & cheaper DDR3 sticks will be out.


Verbatum. By the end of 2008/ early 2009 there will be lower latency higherspeed DDR3 for cheaper.
March 3, 2008 4:03:25 PM

I'd also suggest you just go ahead with your Q6600 build now or wait it out another month or so for E8400 availability to sort itself out (or get a E2160 in the mean time). Then you can jump on the Nehalem (or dare I say whatever AMD rebounds with perhaps) once all the kinks have been worked out and prices for it and DDR3 are down.
March 3, 2008 4:05:15 PM

I went form a P4 to an e2160 (oced to ~3GHz). This was a cheao way to upgrade, and I plan to get a quad core Penryn when they come down in price late in the year. As others have said, if you don't feel the need to upgrade, wait. But know that the Nehalem's won't be at reasonable prices for over a year.
March 3, 2008 5:15:18 PM

But if I get a lower clock speed core duo, say 1.8ghz, wont I be taking a step down in performance in single threaded apps?

I have a few games like SupCom, Crysis that could use the extra cores, but I'm not desperate for a quad.

I mean, how much better are the lower clocked dual's compared to a 3ghz P4?
March 3, 2008 9:12:20 PM

Almost 100% in some specs
a c 127 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 9:17:38 PM

Hell if Intel is right then you can take the jump from Netburt>Conroe and the jump from Conroe>Nehalem will result 40% better performance in single threaded apps to about 100% in multi threaded apps. Thats if Intel is right.

I will give Intel the benefit of the doubt since the last time they stated Conroe was really good and it is really a good architecture.
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2008 10:00:39 PM

Grrrrrrrrrrrr...........I hate Intel for releasing multiple CPU sockets for mainstream, high end,etc. But other than that I should be Ok (i hope)

Quote:
LGA1366 designs would be available for samples by the end of Q2 2008, but the LGA715 for desktops will enter mass manufacturing in the second half of 2008.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Reveals-Nehalem-So...
a c 127 à CPUs
March 3, 2008 10:13:46 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Grrrrrrrrrrrr...........I hate Intel for releasing multiple CPU sockets for mainstream, high end,etc. But other than that I should be Ok (i hope)

Quote:
LGA1366 designs would be available for samples by the end of Q2 2008, but the LGA715 for desktops will enter mass manufacturing in the second half of 2008.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Reveals-Nehalem-So...


I agree but the thing is that the info on Wiki(I know it may be wrong but you never know right?) shows 3. 1 for MP servers LGA1567 which makes sense cuz all of Intels server chips have different sockets, one for DP servers and High end Desktops LGA1366 and one for mainstream/mobile LGA1160.

Of course we will never know until Intel reveals Nehalem. I would expect 3. One for MP Servers, One for mainstream/DP servers and one for mobile since thats the way it has been for a while. Socket LGA771 for MP servers, LGA775 for mainstream/DP servers and 2 for mobile socket M/P 478 for both.

But thats just me. We will have to wait and see.
March 3, 2008 10:38:24 PM

What clock speeds are we looking at on a Nehalem!
March 4, 2008 9:29:37 PM

Quote:
I will give Intel the benefit of the doubt since the last time they stated Conroe was really good and it is really a good architecture.


Keep in mind that there was a ton of propoganda before Prescott was released saying how it would be so much better than Northwood or how the the Pentium D was going to be so much better than the Prescott. In both instances the clock for clock improvement was negligible (except for the Pentium D in multi threaded apps). Seeing as they dropped the ball on the two prior CPU generations before Conroe, I'm not as inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I hope they will come out with a successful product but I'm going to wait until I see some actual tests to back up all the speculation.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 4, 2008 9:35:20 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
I will give Intel the benefit of the doubt since the last time they stated Conroe was really good and it is really a good architecture.


Keep in mind that there was a ton of propoganda before Prescott was released saying how it would be so much better than Northwood or how the the Pentium D was going to be so much better than the Prescott. In both instances the clock for clock improvement was negligible (except for the Pentium D in multi threaded apps). Seeing as they dropped the ball on the two prior CPU generations before Conroe, I'm not as inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I hope they will come out with a successful product but I'm going to wait until I see some actual tests to back up all the speculation.


Actually Ceadermill and Presler did very well but it was over shadowed by Conroe. But that series of Pentium D's were not that bad and di help improve both thermals and performance to an almost even level with Athlon X2.
March 4, 2008 9:45:28 PM

spuddyt said:
if you are willing to, you can easily get an e2140 up to around 3 ghz, check that article tom's did a while ago...
edit: found it: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-E...
also, 1.8 ghz core 2 cpu is much faster than 1.8 ghz p4 - architecture is just WAY above


Just how far above are we looking at, compared to say a P4 3 ghz?
March 4, 2008 10:19:46 PM

Quote:
Actually Ceadermill and Presler did very well but it was over shadowed by Conroe. But that series of Pentium D's were not that bad and di help improve both thermals and performance to an almost even level with Athlon X2.


That's true. The Prescotts and Pentium D's definately got better when they transitioned to 65nm. However, my point wasn't to say the chips were bad, but more to say that you can't always believe the hype leading up to the release of a new processor regardless of which company is spewing it. I remember shortly after buying my Northwood reading articles saying that the Prescott chips were going to dominate the Northwoods, but then when they came out the performance really didn't change much. The same could be said when comparing the Prescotts and Smithfield Pentium D's (for single threads), or for that matter the 939 Athlons compared to the AM2 Athlons.
March 5, 2008 11:53:08 AM

scyle said:
Just how far above are we looking at, compared to say a P4 3 ghz?


Go look at the Tom's Hardware CPU charts (right side of the home page). As for real world, performance, I can say that I could barely encode video without getting errors due to the slow speed of my old 3GHz P4, but my e2160 @ 3GHz encodes even very large video files. Also, unrarring ~700MB - 4GB files takes about half the time (or so it seems to me).
a c 127 à CPUs
March 5, 2008 12:36:16 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
Actually Ceadermill and Presler did very well but it was over shadowed by Conroe. But that series of Pentium D's were not that bad and di help improve both thermals and performance to an almost even level with Athlon X2.


That's true. The Prescotts and Pentium D's definately got better when they transitioned to 65nm. However, my point wasn't to say the chips were bad, but more to say that you can't always believe the hype leading up to the release of a new processor regardless of which company is spewing it. I remember shortly after buying my Northwood reading articles saying that the Prescott chips were going to dominate the Northwoods, but then when they came out the performance really didn't change much. The same could be said when comparing the Prescotts and Smithfield Pentium D's (for single threads), or for that matter the 939 Athlons compared to the AM2 Athlons.


I agree. Like with Phenom I reserved judgement, just like I did with Core2. But I did expect more from Phenom due to its previous architecture(considering it was based off of it too) was really good. It was hard to know what to expect wiht Core2 since it was a new architecture but I had high hopes since its based off of the Pentium M that always did good.

I hope Nehalem is what Intel states it is. That way AMD starts trying harder and pushes competition and thus we can get nice CPUs at a low price :D  .
March 6, 2008 1:51:27 AM

Quote:
I hope Nehalem is what Intel states it is. That way AMD starts trying harder and pushes competition and thus we can get nice CPUs at a low price :D  .


I kinda hope that comes to pass as well. Unfortunately I think that unless AMD and Intel are extremely close in performance whoever manufactures the fastest chip will charge over $1000 for it. That seems to have been the trend for both companies for the past several years at any rate.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 6, 2008 1:57:13 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
I hope Nehalem is what Intel states it is. That way AMD starts trying harder and pushes competition and thus we can get nice CPUs at a low price :D  .


I kinda hope that comes to pass as well. Unfortunately I think that unless AMD and Intel are extremely close in performance whoever manufactures the fastest chip will charge over $1000 for it. That seems to have been the trend for both companies for the past several years at any rate.


We can always hope AMD comes back and competes. I am personally waiting for my next build to be in late 2009/early 2010 when the 32nm Nehalems(Westmere) hit. I just have a feeling those will be fun little chips to play with. I just hope they are not too high in price, say $250 for a nice Q6600 version?
March 6, 2008 1:58:07 AM

prodystopian said:
Go look at the Tom's Hardware CPU charts (right side of the home page). As for real world, performance, I can say that I could barely encode video without getting errors due to the slow speed of my old 3GHz P4, but my e2160 @ 3GHz encodes even very large video files. Also, unrarring ~700MB - 4GB files takes about half the time (or so it seems to me).



After reading the article in this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248811-28-anandtech-t...

I'm not so sure this is such a good idea after all. :( 
March 6, 2008 1:15:48 PM

scyle said:
After reading the article in this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248811-28-anandtech-t...

I'm not so sure this is such a good idea after all. :( 


That is understandable. I am only planning to have this processor for about a year before I upgrade to a Penryn Quad core, so I am not really worried about degradation, but if you are planning to have a processor for the long term, it may not be too wise to push it very hard.
March 6, 2008 3:20:05 PM

jimmysmitty said:
We can always hope AMD comes back and competes. I am personally waiting for my next build to be in late 2009/early 2010 when the 32nm Nehalems(Westmere) hit. I just have a feeling those will be fun little chips to play with. I just hope they are not too high in price, say $250 for a nice Q6600 version?


at 32nm? you will be lucky mate. mid 2010 maybe.
March 6, 2008 11:16:11 PM




So does everyone agree that this is the best option

And OC to 3ghz like Tom did, and then next year or so when the new chips are cheap, do a "real" upgrade?
!