Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2.66GHz Nehalem to cost $300?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 15, 2008 1:27:43 AM

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/07/14/intel_prices_up...

$284 is the 1000 qty price, assuming a 5 - 10% markup by retailers, that'd put it around $300 - $310 in stores. That's a pretty good price if you ask me, I feared Nehalem would come in at $500+ even for the bottom model.

Since Baron is back, maybe he'll have another rant about how Intel sells their CPUs too cheap?!

How dare they sell a Nehalem for $300?! OMG predatory pricing!!! :sarcastic:  :lol: 

More about : 66ghz nehalem cost 300

July 15, 2008 1:33:51 AM

$300 would be a real nice deal. Wonder if they'll overclock as well as the Core2 line.
July 15, 2008 1:39:08 AM

Ill take Baron's place and say that the low price does actually concern me. I believe Nehalem will be a disappointment to everyone that thinks it will be the god CPU. It will deliver slightly higher performance, but not revolutionary, though in time it will get better with multi-threaded applications. What WILL make a difference is the DDR3 support, this also makes me hopeful that AMD wont be too far behind, especially if AMD can utilize DDR3 better than Intel.

That said I really hope I am wrong about everything except the AMD bit, we need some competition.
Related resources
July 15, 2008 1:59:18 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Ill take Baron's place and say that the low price does actually concern me. I believe Nehalem will be a disappointment to everyone that thinks it will be the god CPU. It will deliver slightly higher performance, but not revolutionary, though in time it will get better with multi-threaded applications. What WILL make a difference is the DDR3 support, this also makes me hopeful that AMD wont be too far behind, especially if AMD can utilize DDR3 better than Intel.

That said I really hope I am wrong about everything except the AMD bit, we need some competition.


That depends on what your expectations are. All along, we have known that the biggest jumps in performance will come from the multithreading side of things, single threaded performance will only increase marginally.

If you expected Nehalem to be 20 - 40% faster in single threaded apps, then of course you'll be disappointed. But such gains in multithreaded apps are more than likely, so again, it comes down to your expectations.

Btw, why does a $300 Nehalem concern you? $300 is still a sizeable chunk of change, its not 'budget' by any means but it does make it more accessible to the masses. I take it you're worried what this would do to AMD's bottom line?
July 15, 2008 2:03:33 AM

So, what will AMD put out to compete against it? :p 
July 15, 2008 2:12:51 AM

dagger said:
So, what will AMD put out to compete against it? :p 


Quad FX v2.0? Or should that be Octo FX?

Seriously, I don't see anything from AMD challenging Nehalem until Bulldozer hits, and I'm even skeptical of that because Westmere (32nm Nehalem) will be out by then as well. Hopefully AMD pulls another rabbit out of the hat like their HD4000 GPUs. I agree with The Blood Raven that we need the competition.
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 2:27:50 AM

dagger said:
So, what will AMD put out to compete against it? :p 


A dual AMD Deneb system 6 months before the inexpensive Nehalem is available to mainstream users in mid 2009 and even then the Nehalem will probably be hard to get.
The extreme version of the 4 core Nehalem should be available about the same time as the dual AMD Deneb (8 core) system in late 2008 or early 2009.The extreme version of Intel's Nehalem most likely will be more powerful than a Dual AMD Deneb system but pricier.
A 6 core AMD CPU slightly after the mainstream inexpensive Nehalem is available.
When the 8 Core Nehalem is available a 12 core AMD CPU slightly after it is available.


July 15, 2008 3:00:12 AM

Hmmmm 300$ is fair for a new CPU, I just have a few questions left before I start budgeting to get one lol

1. How will it OC since I cant just crank up the FSB anymore :( 
2. How much will the mobos cost ? (I think they will be pricey at the start)
3. Will it run DNF ? heheheheh

Also will need to buy a new after market cooling solution this old Thermaltake heatpipe copper thing has seen like 4 CPU's so far and probably a 5th before I let it rest in its final PC....
July 15, 2008 3:19:12 AM

It just does not seem like Intel to produce a $300 CPU with all the hype and lack of competition from AMD unless it really did not meet expectations. epsilon84 I understand and I stated my expectations as well. DDR3 will most likely be the only real jump in performance I think and Nehalem will be about the same as or maybe faster than the current high end. My point is if the new revision of the Phenoms can tie in DDR3 performance than I can see them easily being around the current Intel high end and since neither Denub or Nehalem will OC as well as we are used to than I think AMD will be a CHOICE soon, or atleast I hope. All this is speculation of course, Nehalem may be so powerful it can control the minds of us all and there will be a computer revolution and the computers powered by Nehalem will enslave us all....
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 3:21:45 AM

hmm but from what I've heard about Core 2 vs Nelhem is that its a 11% average increase clock for clock
July 15, 2008 3:35:46 AM

Well, think of it this way -

Intel will release this CPU at the rumored priced, only because the user will have to:
1. get a new motherboard ($180-250?)
2. buy DDR3 memory ($79 for upwards to $180, DDR3-1066, prices could vary)

So, maybe Intel just wants to get as many "low-end" Nehalem's into consumer's systems, and not just the enthusiasts crowd.

Just my opinion.

memory prices from Newegg.
July 15, 2008 3:38:17 AM

amdfangirl said:
hmm but from what I've heard about Core 2 vs Nelhem is that its a 11% average increase clock for clock


That wouldn't be too bad, and I also wonder how Intel will handle the whole IMC thing.

Will it be better then AMD's ?
Possible they have had years to sit and look at AMD's solution and possibly make improvements.

Either way I am positive this will be interesting to say the least lol
July 15, 2008 4:04:19 AM

I've read 30% improvements clock for clock.
July 15, 2008 4:09:53 AM

30%, no way but the 11% that amdfangirl has posted is most likely the best case scenario. It wont be 30% just because of software bottlenecks, not hardware. The motherboard point makes sense, though Intel does not make DDR3 so they are less likely to case about it.
July 15, 2008 4:16:11 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
30%, no way but the 11% that amdfangirl has posted is most likely the best case scenario. It wont be 30% just because of software bottlenecks, not hardware. The motherboard point makes sense, though Intel does not make DDR3 so they are less likely to case about it.


Hmm, 11% the best case scenario?! I guess you missed the Anandtech preview where Nehalem absolutely pantsed a Yorkfield at the same clockspeed...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...
July 15, 2008 4:19:22 AM

Oh no I am well acquainted with that, but I just do not believe it, though who really knows? The truth is that from what we know there really is nothing, spec. wise, that points to such a large increase. I just believe it is wise not to expect too much, and if I am wrong then that Nehalem rig I am saving for will be even sweeter!

Also those scores are only slightly better than the Q9770.
July 15, 2008 4:24:26 AM

amdfangirl said:
hmm but from what I've heard about Core 2 vs Nelhem is that its a 11% average increase clock for clock


Yeah I think I saw that too in a prototype test (was it on Tom's?). When we have the final product of Nehalem I think it would be better than 11% though.
July 15, 2008 4:41:23 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Oh no I am well acquainted with that, but I just do not believe it, though who really knows? The truth is that from what we know there really is nothing, spec. wise, that points to such a large increase. I just believe it is wise not to expect too much, and if I am wrong then that Nehalem rig I am saving for will be even sweeter!

Also those scores are only slightly better than the Q9770.


Is that suppsoed to be a bad thing? Geez, we're talking about a $300 CPU beating the $1500 current flagship, and you complain because its only 'slightly better'.

I guess some people are just hard to please! :kaola: 
July 15, 2008 5:21:03 AM

epsilon84 said:
Hmm, 11% the best case scenario?! I guess you missed the Anandtech preview where Nehalem absolutely pantsed a Yorkfield at the same clockspeed...


I believe the 11% was for single-threaded performance, though; in many of those benchmarks the Nehalem could be running 8 threads while the Core 2 would be running 4 threads.
July 15, 2008 5:30:42 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
30%, no way but the 11% that amdfangirl has posted is most likely the best case scenario.
Quote:
Without Intel's approval, supervision, blessing or even desire - we went ahead and snagged us a Nehalem (actually, two) and spent some time with them.

(Sorry guys, stop making interesting chips and we'll stop trying to get an early look at them :) ...)
The_Blood_Raven said:
Oh no I am well acquainted with that, but I just do not believe it, though who really knows?
Let me get this straight. Anandtech got their hands on two CPUs and ran their own benchmarks. They didn't use someone else's data, but ran the benches themselves. So you think they were lying? Anandtech does a good job, they may not be perfect 100% of the time, no one is, but I also don't believe they are outright liars either. I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than the 11% number that keeps getting bandied about.

I suspect your Nehalem rig will be even sweeter.
July 15, 2008 5:37:03 AM

MarkG said:
I believe the 11% was for single-threaded performance, though; in many of those benchmarks the Nehalem could be running 8 threads while the Core 2 would be running 4 threads.


True, like I said earlier, we shouldn't expect a massive leap in single threaded apps. Multi-threading is where its at. I'm curious about gaming performance because the IMC gave K8 a huge advantage over K7 in games. We probably won't see the same leap in regards to Core 2 -> Nehalem, the large cache hides the inefficiencies of the FSB quite well, but time will tell.
July 15, 2008 5:47:46 AM

Are we sure that price is in dollars? I know they used the dollar sign but it is from a brit source and i would think they would be quoting ££.
July 15, 2008 5:50:43 AM

shawnbie said:
Are we sure that price is in dollars? I know they used the dollar sign but it is from a brit source and i would think they would be quoting ££.


Chips are usually priced in dollars. And they're quoting direct from a Chinese site.
July 15, 2008 5:51:26 AM

I dug up the Tom's review. 'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed.
Quote:
Unfortunately, we were not able to test the system for long, and therefore very little comparison could be made to another system. However, we did manage to run the chip through some common synthetic benchmarks. We will definitely be providing a full performance review.
Let's see what they come up with running the same benches.
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 6:06:10 AM

Keep in mind that Nahelem is the "tock" so it should have some nice architecural improvements that will increase performance. I am hoping that they are getting close to some real improvements by making better use of the graphics cars - but regrettably have not heard anything significant with respect to Nahelem.
July 15, 2008 6:07:44 AM

Apparently any professional review site that somehow "seemed" to put Intel under a lime light is considered biased. However when asked for proof, some always just shrug it off with, "you never know".
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2008 6:12:36 AM

NMDante said:
Well, think of it this way -

Intel will release this CPU at the rumored priced, only because the user will have to:
1. get a new motherboard ($180-250?)
2. buy DDR3 memory ($79 for upwards to $180, DDR3-1066, prices could vary)

So, maybe Intel just wants to get as many "low-end" Nehalem's into consumer's systems, and not just the enthusiasts crowd.

Just my opinion.

memory prices from Newegg.

That's the catch that bothers me. $300 is not really that cheap, and when you add in other costs it simply isn't worth it unless you know the software you use is highly multi-threaded.
July 15, 2008 7:03:44 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Apparently any professional review site that somehow "seemed" to put Intel under a lime light is considered biased. However when asked for proof, some always just shrug it off with, "you never know".


True, I should mention that Anandtech did the same with the Conroe launch, they had benches about 3 months prior to release showing it smashing an FX-60 and everybody was claiming they were fake... we all know how that turned out. :lol: 

It is just not in Anandtech's interests to 'make up' such numbers, they've worked too hard to earn their rep as a credible hardware site to have it tarnished by making up a fairytale story. Nehalem is coming out soon enough - if there are any large discrepancies surely they would be called out on it.
July 15, 2008 7:26:22 AM

The truth is AMD has new formula. "BE SILENT" let the outcome do the talking like what happen to 4800 series which is opposite to 3800 which has more talking yet not enough realization. Now they are back with less talking strategy.
July 15, 2008 9:34:51 AM

Somebody GAME bench this thing already.....we've had fast enough CPU's for DIVx coding and those sorts for the past 2 years (core2)

I just want frames rates...everything else runs fine on CORE 2 DUO's

Give me 15 - 20% increase in CPU bottlenecked games and ill buy a mid range one and OC the pants off it.
July 15, 2008 10:25:59 AM

You might have to wait until the octo-core with 16 threads and widespread adoption of ray-tracing. Yes, in the confluence of all, you will have gamers Nirvana... I just woke up.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 15, 2008 2:26:39 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
It just does not seem like Intel to produce a $300 CPU with all the hype and lack of competition from AMD unless it really did not meet expectations. epsilon84 I understand and I stated my expectations as well. DDR3 will most likely be the only real jump in performance I think and Nehalem will be about the same as or maybe faster than the current high end. My point is if the new revision of the Phenoms can tie in DDR3 performance than I can see them easily being around the current Intel high end and since neither Denub or Nehalem will OC as well as we are used to than I think AMD will be a CHOICE soon, or atleast I hope. All this is speculation of course, Nehalem may be so powerful it can control the minds of us all and there will be a computer revolution and the computers powered by Nehalem will enslave us all....


Its totaly possible for Intel to do it. Think about it. Intel has been working on 45nm since 2006. They started ramping up production (with a new FAB in Chandler) and converting FABs so by the time Nehalem debuts 45nm will be fully ramped up. Also in this years time they will mature the process and allow for greater yeilds and the better the yeilds the lower the price.

I have been saying it is possible for Intel to release the chips at a good price. Although Penryn wasn't much of a changer it still included 45nm and Hafnium process yet the 2.66GHz Q9450 came out for about $350.

The_Blood_Raven said:
Oh no I am well acquainted with that, but I just do not believe it, though who really knows? The truth is that from what we know there really is nothing, spec. wise, that points to such a large increase. I just believe it is wise not to expect too much, and if I am wrong then that Nehalem rig I am saving for will be even sweeter!

Also those scores are only slightly better than the Q9770.


Yes but with a 340MHz disadvantage. I would imagine that on a clock per clock basis you could expect anywhere form 20-40% depeneing on the application being used. In gaming we wont know till we see some definative benchmarks but so far in vide encoding and rendering it is doing quite well.

As for gaming I hope that it helps a bit. $300 bucks is cheaper than I though so I might pick one up sooner than late 2010. Or maybe I will wait for Westmere.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 15, 2008 2:36:56 PM

pogsnet said:
The truth is AMD has new formula. "BE SILENT" let the outcome do the talking like what happen to 4800 series which is opposite to 3800 which has more talking yet not enough realization. Now they are back with less talking strategy.


So their strategy is hype the crap yet keep the good stuff quiet?
July 15, 2008 6:01:57 PM

Zorg said:
Let me get this straight. Anandtech got their hands on two CPUs and ran their own benchmarks. They didn't use someone else's data, but ran the benches themselves. So you think they were lying? Anandtech does a good job, they may not be perfect 100% of the time, no one is, but I also don't believe they are outright liars either. I'm more inclined to believe their numbers than the 11% number that keeps getting bandied about.

I suspect your Nehalem rig will be even sweeter.


Oh no you misunderstand I know Anandtech does a good job, but that CPU came straight from Intel and I do not trust any company in that situation.

Also I would not buy a Q9770 even if I had the money, because the performance is not there compared to a Q9450 or E8500.

Problem I see is that Nehalem will set records in video encoding and converting and such like that, saving us all a few minutes.... Gaming is what worries me, I just do not see much of a performance boost from Nehalem, but the DDR3 will definitely make up for that if it is supported the way they keep saying.
July 15, 2008 7:59:18 PM

I don't see Nehalem making that significant of an improvement with gaming until raytracing starts making an appearance. A hyperthreading octo core will be impressive for sure but when the games today are playing better on dual cores than they do on quad cores, eight cores will just be too much untapped power.

I do believe there will be improvements with the new architecture just like we saw with the penyrns but gaming will not see the massive leaps seen in anands review with the York vs Neh in 3D rendering.

I think it will end up being just like skulltrail...a lot of hype backed by hardcore 3D rendering numbers but no significant impact on gaming benchmarks other than what a new architecture brings along.
a c 127 à CPUs
July 15, 2008 8:10:28 PM

That is unless Nehalem does get Dynamic OCing that will OC a core while underclocking the rest in order to get better performance.
July 16, 2008 2:58:31 PM

SpinachEater said:
IA hyperthreading octo core will be impressive for sure but when the games today are playing better on dual cores than they do on quad cores, eight cores will just be too much untapped power.


Games are written for dual cores because dual cores are what the average gamer has. The next generation will be written for quad cores.

As for 'too much power', there's really no limit as to how much power you can suck up for physics and AI calculations in most games (obviously 'Pong' would be overkill on an octo-core :) ).
!