Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nehalem is sampling

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 9, 2008 1:31:53 PM

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Fudzilla - less reliable than The Inq... but "plausable" as Intel projects a Q4 launch

More about : nehalem sampling

March 9, 2008 3:23:11 PM

Interesting i heard a 2009 Release is more likely, I'm interested in the leap to CSI and an integrated memory controller. Still its early days - were just about to see the rest of the kentsfields peak.
March 9, 2008 5:05:42 PM

acidpython said:
Interesting i heard a 2009 Release is more likely, I'm interested in the leap to CSI and an integrated memory controller. Still its early days - were just about to see the rest of the kentsfields peak.


And it will still be a while before the Yorkfield processors die out.
Related resources
March 9, 2008 6:34:18 PM

According to those familiar with Intel's upcoming processor, Nehalem is likely to come out before Shanghai... :sarcastic: 
March 9, 2008 6:40:06 PM

Yes, but those are still a while away. It will be at least a year (or even longer) before there are affordable nehalem processor on the market. The extreme editions will be around by the beginning for 09, but those are severely overpriced.
March 9, 2008 7:20:08 PM

If I remember correctly, according to Intel's own roadmap, the lowest pricing Nehalem quad core will come at mid-300 USD levels, which is around the cost of Q9450, in Q408.
March 9, 2008 9:16:09 PM

yomamafor1 said:
If I remember correctly, according to Intel's own roadmap, the lowest pricing Nehalem quad core will come at mid-300 USD levels, which is around the cost of Q9450, in Q408.


But Intel's road map is a bit delayed now. Just look at the original release dates for some of the 45 quad core cpus. They delayed the release date for that since AMD really isn't much of a competitor right now.
March 9, 2008 9:21:13 PM

Actually Intel has always said Q1 for 45nm quads and duals. And according to xbitlabs, Intel's 45nm quads will start selling next week.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080307105007...

Quote:

As you know, the shipments of 45nm quad-core Core 2 Quad processors were delayed due to issues with processor system bus discovered in them. These Yorkfield processors on the new C1 stepping that would be free from this problem were expected to arrive in early March. According to sources, the new processor went into mass production exactly as planned and next week we should see 45nm Core 2 Quad Q9300, Q9450 and Q9550 in retail stores already. The mass production processors will be based solely on C1 stepping, which doesn’t have any changes to its thermal, electrical or mechanical specifications compared with the previous C0 processor stepping that is used widely in dual-core Wolfdale processors these days.


And FYI, the delay of Intel quad cores were not because of incompetent of AMD, but rather a FSB noise issue and compatibility with cheaper OEM motherboards.
March 10, 2008 3:04:33 AM

Quote:
But Intel's road map is a bit delayed now. Just look at the original release dates for some of the 45 quad core cpus. They delayed the release date for that since AMD really isn't much of a competitor right now.


I keep seeing people say this over and over, but it makes absolutely no sense. Why would Intel delay a product just because their competitor was behind? They wouldn't. If Nehalem was ready to go on the market on time it would be on the market on time. The fact that it has been delayed means that some problems were encountered and things have taken longer than originally anticipated.

No company would ever delay the release of a product simply because their competitor was behind. That's just utter lunacy. When a company invests a significant amount of time and resources into a new product they want to start making a return on it as soon as possible.
March 10, 2008 4:45:12 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
No company would ever delay the release of a product simply because their competitor was behind. That's just utter lunacy. When a company invests a significant amount of time and resources into a new product they want to start making a return on it as soon as possible.


It's easy to tell you're 'just an engineer', and not a manager.
March 10, 2008 5:08:38 AM

Personally, Ill take the stockholders
March 10, 2008 5:54:44 AM

nepher will rewrite all known existing performance parameters - lets hope pc gaming survives the pirates
March 10, 2008 6:21:42 AM

:pfff:  i just hope AMD releases there 45nm before so there is still some competition !!!
March 10, 2008 7:31:06 AM

T2bus said:
:pfff:  i just hope AMD releases there 45nm before so there is still some competition !!!

The yorkies are already shipping, while the B3s aren't yet.
Nehalem has already sent out test samples, while shanghai is supposedly going out now.
I think that Intel is in more of a hurry to ship second generation HK/MG chips, than AMD is to break in a new node.
It will likely be close, but nehalem will probably be available in quantity before shanghai.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 10, 2008 1:11:32 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
But Intel's road map is a bit delayed now. Just look at the original release dates for some of the 45 quad core cpus. They delayed the release date for that since AMD really isn't much of a competitor right now.


I keep seeing people say this over and over, but it makes absolutely no sense. Why would Intel delay a product just because their competitor was behind? They wouldn't. If Nehalem was ready to go on the market on time it would be on the market on time. The fact that it has been delayed means that some problems were encountered and things have taken longer than originally anticipated.

No company would ever delay the release of a product simply because their competitor was behind. That's just utter lunacy. When a company invests a significant amount of time and resources into a new product they want to start making a return on it as soon as possible.
It's different when there are only 2 real companies in the market.

Intel has to worry about anti-trust regulations when it comes to AMD. If they are not up to snuff and Intel constantly smashes them with new faster better products, they could drive AMD out of business.

Most other markets have vastly more than 2 competitors. Mainly due to the fact that the products are much easier to start making compared to a CPU.

Of course Intel did have issues that they decided to resolve first before release.

T2bus said:
:pfff:  i just hope AMD releases there 45nm before so there is still some competition !!!


AMD's 45nm is said to be out later this year but I am doubting it. AMD hasn't stuck to its roadmap for the past 1-2 years so its a bit sketchy right now.

And we have no idea what their 45nm will do. I just hope they don't start stating 40% better than Kentsfeild/Yorkfeild again.

Although it would be funny to watch them fall on thier face again...
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2008 2:17:10 PM

I think you will find AMD will likely get more secretive ... rather than less.

Those claims hurt them badly before.

It is probably best for them to simply put up or shut up now.

The days of the mighty FX crumbled after the humble 533 FSB mobile precursor to core2 (using that bunky socket converter) matched it clock for clock (IPC). That was the first sign Intel were on a comeback.

I read that review ... can't remember the chip tho ... merom??

Pls help ...



:) 
March 10, 2008 2:26:06 PM

I believe so
a c 127 à CPUs
March 10, 2008 2:47:23 PM

Reynod said:
I think you will find AMD will likely get more secretive ... rather than less.

Those claims hurt them badly before.

It is probably best for them to simply put up or shut up now.

The days of the mighty FX crumbled after the humble 533 FSB mobile precursor to core2 (using that bunky socket converter) matched it clock for clock (IPC). That was the first sign Intel were on a comeback.

I read that review ... can't remember the chip tho ... merom??

Pls help ...



:) 


I remember that. THG OC'ed it using the 478 to 479 convertor and it blew away almost everything in its path. It was the Dothan core first which was based off of a Pentium III Tualatin(which is turn was based off of a Pentium Pro).

And the current Core2 is based off of that. But I doubt Intel had any notion of just how great those Pentium M's were at first. It wasn't until about 2004 that they relaized that they had a hit and decided to adapt it to the desktop with Core2.

But that makes me happy as its a great CPU and I love my Q6600 to death. Plus 4 cores gives ya braggin rights :D 

*Edit*

Forgot to add that Merom was the Core2 Solo
March 10, 2008 3:12:13 PM

Quote:
It's easy to tell you're 'just an engineer', and not a manager.


I think what's "easy to tell" is that you don't understand how businesses operate or how financial decisions are made. Allow me to elaborate on my previous post:

You have to remember that companies that produce components, whether they be CPUs, motherboards, car parts, etc., sign contracts with customers stating that they will supply X number of Y part by a specified date for a specified amount of money. These contracts are typically negotiated well in advance of a product's scheduled release. If the supplier is unable to meet the terms of the contract, i.e. if the delivery time is delayed then the company will generally have to pay liquidated damages until the contract is fulfilled. Liquidated damages vary in amount depending on the size of the contract and are meant to compensate the customer for lost revenue due to the delay. No company wants to pay liquidated damages as they can eat up the margin on a contract very quickly. Since Nehalem was delayed close to its' scheduled release, Intel is likely now paying liquidated damaged to the OEMs. Similarly, AMD likely had to pay liquidated damages for the delay of the Barcelona processors. If we were talking about delaying the release of a part 2 years before its' release it would be a different story as these contract would not have been negotiated yet, but that isn't the case here.

In response to Jimmysmitty, you make some interesting points. I'm sure at some level there are some internal discussions at Intel about what would happen should AMD go out of business. However, I don't think any company has ever been sanctioned for putting out consistently better products that their competitors. The only way Intel could get themselves into trouble with anti-trust regulations would be if they were found to be selling products at negative margin in a bid to drive other companies out of the market. Given what Intel typically charges for their new products, I think we can safely say that they aren't selling below cost.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 10, 2008 3:47:07 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
In response to Jimmysmitty, you make some interesting points. I'm sure at some level there are some internal discussions at Intel about what would happen should AMD go out of business. However, I don't think any company has ever been sanctioned for putting out consistently better products that their competitors. The only way Intel could get themselves into trouble with anti-trust regulations would be if they were found to be selling products at negative margin in a bid to drive other companies out of the market. Given what Intel typically charges for their new products, I think we can safely say that they aren't selling below cost.


I agree totaly. But thats the main problem. If Intel consitently pounded AMD in this time(especially the buyout of ATI hitting them) AMD wouldn't be able to keep up especially since Phenom wasn't that "spectacular".So I could see Intel calming down a bit to let AMD catch up.

But either way I don't think Intel has sold a CPU for under cost in a while. Now AMD I think is close to it with Phenom as they have it so cheap especially since its a new CPU.

But time will tell. This month comes Yorkfeild and I guess we will see what happens with them.
March 10, 2008 6:01:13 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
But Intel's road map is a bit delayed now. Just look at the original release dates for some of the 45 quad core cpus. They delayed the release date for that since AMD really isn't much of a competitor right now.


I keep seeing people say this over and over, but it makes absolutely no sense. Why would Intel delay a product just because their competitor was behind? They wouldn't. If Nehalem was ready to go on the market on time it would be on the market on time. The fact that it has been delayed means that some problems were encountered and things have taken longer than originally anticipated.

No company would ever delay the release of a product simply because their competitor was behind. That's just utter lunacy. When a company invests a significant amount of time and resources into a new product they want to start making a return on it as soon as possible.


Actually, it would make sense if you look at the high cost of researching a new architecture. Since the 65nm intel cpus were a big hit and people are still buying them, Intel wants to squeeze the last bit of profit out of the 65nm before it markets the 45nm series.
March 10, 2008 6:38:54 PM

mikekazik1 said:
Actually, it would make sense if you look at the high cost of researching a new architecture. Since the 65nm intel cpus were a big hit and people are still buying them, Intel wants to squeeze the last bit of profit out of the 65nm before it markets the 45nm series.


Actually, not necessarily. The 45nm CPUs are easier and cheaper to manufacture than 65nm CPUs. Therefore Intel can increase their profit even if they lower the price of the CPUs.
March 10, 2008 7:07:34 PM

I think mikekazik has a point on several levels.

1) There is a "new" factor with a new process node that can be used to leverage sales. Slowing down new product introductions maximizes this "new" factor for consumers looking to upgrade by minimizing the number of them skipping entire product (process) generations. This minimizes R&D cost indirectly by letting you delay the rollout of the next generation.

(Of course, if your competitor is forging ahead and stealing sales, this kind of thinking wouldn't take place.)

2) There is a higher risk of ramping quickly. By definition, you're more likely to find surprise problems with a hurried and less mature process. A slow ramp lessens the fallout to reputation and profits from such a problem.

The first one is purely from the viewpoint of business, the second is an engineering/liabilities realization, and neither is necessarily in the interests of consumers. So I'm not expecting anyone here to concede those are valid; it's simply a fact that businesses want to make more money.
March 10, 2008 7:46:44 PM

Let’s not forget share value (billion dollar company)… Missing deadlines is not good for the value of your company. No Company would purposely hold back a new “better” product based solely on their competitors actions. (In this case 1 competitor, who are nearly out of business as it is)

I could however see Intel holding back till the end of a quarter, but this would be the deadline. For instance: Intel announces 45nm in Q1/08 and wait till the absolute last day, thus not hurting there share value and/or company “road map”. Ultimately AMD’s actions would have little to nothing to do with that Intel decision.
March 10, 2008 8:00:53 PM

Also, You would want to reclaim some of the invested money by selling the product as soon as possible. How much did it cost to create the first Nahalem processor? One billion? Two billion? We aren’t talking chump change here, they need to make cash back, pay investors, and every day missed is a lot of revenue missed.
March 10, 2008 8:25:45 PM

Quote:
Missing deadlines is not good for the value of your company. No Company would purposely hold back a new “better” product based solely on their competitors actions. (In this case 1 competitor, who are nearly out of business as it is)

As said there are numerous small reasons to hold back a product - like further testing to avoid release-day flops.

When your sole competitor is flagrantly behind and nearly bankrupt, I think missing your own deadlines isn't material to your value.

Furthermore, there's the deadline they released to the press and the one they released to the OEMs and direct partners. It's a much smaller deal to miss a press deadline because that is no contract.

To reiterate: Introducing Q9300/94xx right now would eat into Q6600/6700/6800 sales, so it is not a clean case of missing revenue by delaying intro.
Quote:
Also, You would want to reclaim some of the invested money by selling the product as soon as possible... every day missed is a lot of revenue missed.

Rollout ASAP is not a smart business decision with established product (Kentsfield), reputation, and lack of competition. Also, I'm a bit confused why people are associating Nehalem with delay. There isn't a firm release date for Nehalem; right now it's the budget/mainstream Penryns which may have been delayed from January to March, depending on who you talk to.
March 10, 2008 9:46:22 PM

b1tchin :lol: 
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2008 10:50:16 PM

Intel certainly is not under any urgency to release new products, but they are not purposely delaying shipping new products simply because AMD has nothing to answer with.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
March 11, 2008 12:59:10 AM

Quote:
Intel certainly is not under any urgency to release new products, but they are not purposely delaying shipping new products simply because AMD has nothing to answer with.
That is absolutely ridiculous.


This thread is starting to get a little out of hand. It almost looks like it would be more at home at a stock trading forum that a computer hardware forum.
March 12, 2008 1:53:40 AM

FrozenGpu said:
b1tchin :lol: 


FTW!!!
March 12, 2008 12:27:42 PM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Quote:
But Intel's road map is a bit delayed now. Just look at the original release dates for some of the 45 quad core cpus. They delayed the release date for that since AMD really isn't much of a competitor right now.

I keep seeing people say this over and over, but it makes absolutely no sense. Why would Intel delay a product just because their competitor was behind? They wouldn't. ...When a company invests a significant amount of time and resources into a new product they want to start making a return on it as soon as possible.

My perspective is as a business manager not a tech guy, but I disagree. If your making a good margin and have good market share, why not keep your next big stick in the closet till your margin and share begin to erode?
jimmysmitty said:
It's different when there are only 2 real companies in the market.
Intel has to worry about anti-trust regulations when it comes to AMD. If they are not up to snuff and Intel constantly smashes them with new faster better products, they could drive AMD out of business.

^Agree. Keep turning a good profit and keep your little brother (sister :) ) at arms length, but not knocked out.
March 13, 2008 1:07:43 AM

Quote:
My perspective is as a business manager not a tech guy, but I disagree. If your making a good margin and have good market share, why not keep your next big stick in the closet till your margin and share begin to erode?


In some cases this would be true, but I'm not sure it applies here due to the difference in manufacturing methods of the two products and the time and resources needed to convert existing production facilities. As I mentioned before, there is also the issue of supply contracts that have potentially been signed with the OEMs.

However, all of this is meaningless conjecture since the delay was in fact caused by an unforeseen problem as was mentioned earlier in the thread. I never expected that my original post would generate so much discussion as I simply meant to chastise people for automatically assuming that any delays were from Intel arbitrarily deciding to slack off instead of them encountering problems. Too many people are of the opinion that Intel can do no wrong.
!