We managed to get some hot details about Bloomfield CPUs and as you can imagine 3.2GHz the fastest part will sell for $999.
The real surprise comes from 2.66GHz part that will be selling for very acceptable $284. This money gets you the real native quad core at 45nm with 4.8 QDI and 8MB of total CPU L2 cache. We suspect that this CPU supports only dual channel DDR3 memory and naturally it fits to socket 1366. Let's not forget that this quad core supports total of eight threads.
This is a slightly higher price compared to 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q9400 or slightly lower than current price of Core 2 Quad Q9450 with 2.66GHz and full 6MB of memory.
Clock to clock Nehalem should be 10 to 15 percent faster than Core 2 Quad and with these prices, it looks like a really nice deal.
Deneb will have some fearsome competition.
Nehalem for $284 ONLY??????? i thought it was goin to cost a fortune and was only for sever untill Q2 of 2009 or sumthing.......
if this is true than amd is going to fall behind again after whatever gains it made with phenom in clock for clock department. dam, i lik amd. i have been using amd from ever since windows98 and i was hoping 2 get 45nm phenom but now it looks lik intel is getting realy attractive specially with the low cpu voltage and all.
Message edited by sarwar_r87 on 07-24-2008 at 02:04:58 PM
i read in tomshardware that nehalem is only 5 to 10% faster than current penryn. and that was a test system only.but even so cpu will have low voltage requirement and that means it will run cool, this matters to ppl like me who live in hot country.
but i dont think we can overclock it so much as intel plans so lock its memory controller in the cpu in order to prevent OC. now that would be realy sad coz ppl would then rather buy penryn coz it OCs.
Yes, The Article states about 10-15% faster which matches some early reviews I've read.
The Price would also come close to Intel's current pricing model.
I would be surprised if it was priced much higher.
Remember, AMD will be shipping 45nm Quads by the end of the year.
These will be cheaper to make and possilby clock higher.
For this reason, Intel needs to keep shipping faster processors and moving them down the line so the slow ones bump off the price list.
They make profit by keeping still faster processors at the higher end of the price list.
Intel has said more than oncce that the Nehalm will be around in Q4 and not just the enthusiast models. The question will be supply.
One thing that will help shortages is that the chip will require a new Mobo.
This will limit demand slightly as upgrades will be a little more difficult.
The other thing that will help, is these chips are built on the same 45nm process so the ramp will be fairly easy. Intel had an easier time ramping into the Core2Duoe 65nm than to the 45nm, even though the 65nm was a new design.
---------------
If its good in theory but not in practice,
its not good theory.
It's 25-50% faster clock per clock than penryn and it OC's very well on every preview I've seen. Still talking about engineering samples though. It will only use DDR3 which is the major down side unless those prices fall.
Honestly, I think we are in for a bit of disappointment. There's *absolutely no fre@king way* Intel would price an ultra-kick-ass *NEW* arch this way. Just look at QX9770. Just look at the price of Yorkfields when they arrived. Of course we also have the very expensive 3.2 Nehalem version, but even so...
Probably it is not doing THAT well in what we, buyers of enthusiast tech, do: Games.
Just speculation, anyway. I hope it's nice, but I don't have that many hopes...
(PS: This 25/50% is just in heavily multi-threaded applications, if I remember correctly. I have seen slides from Intel claiming 1.2x performance clock-per-clock vs Penryn in a single-threaded environment, which is kinda pointless if you own a fast/overclocked Penryn, if you ask me)
The article has a major flaw though. If that is a LGA1366 then it is triple channel DDR3 not dual. The dual channel DDR3 will be on the other socket with less contacts. Thats the whole reason why there are 2 sockets for desktop users.
As for the price determining performance, I doubt that. I think its because Intel has gotten the 45nm process to yeild very well. The more ya have the less it can cost in the begining and the more you will sell sooner and faster.
Honestly, I think we are in for a bit of disappointment. There's *absolutely no fre@king way* Intel would price an ultra-kick-ass *NEW* arch this way. Just look at QX9770. Just look at the price of Yorkfields when they arrived. Of course we also have the very expensive 3.2 Nehalem version, but even so...
Probably it is not doing THAT well in what we, buyers of enthusiast tech, do: Games.
Just speculation, anyway. I hope it's nice, but I don't have that many hopes...
(PS: This 25/50% is just in heavily multi-threaded applications, if I remember correctly. I have seen slides from Intel claiming 1.2x performance clock-per-clock vs Penryn in a single-threaded environment, which is kinda pointless if you own a fast/overclocked Penryn, if you ask me)
If I remember the Yorkfields they came out priced quite decently. In the $300s for the lowest quad core. Thats not too bad considering the advantages (new process, HK/MG/45nm, and SSE 4.1) it had over Kentsfield.
The 20-50% was in an array of apps. 20% in single threaded is a nice bump but the advantage of 50% in multithreaded apps (and games when the software developers get off their ass) is great.
The article has a major flaw though. If that is a LGA1366 then it is triple channel DDR3 not dual. The dual channel DDR3 will be on the other socket with less contacts. Thats the whole reason why there are 2 sockets for desktop users.
As for the price determining performance, I doubt that. I think its because Intel has gotten the 45nm process to yeild very well. The more ya have the less it can cost in the begining and the more you will sell sooner and faster.
I agree with you regarding the 45nm process, however, we are not talking about AMD/ATI: we are talking about Intel - who can afford to price their top-end CPUs at 1000$+. Do you think that, if it delivered what it promised, people wouldn't happily spend 600$+ for the lower clocked model? There are even guys buying QX9770 for an unlocked multiplier, I mean, WTF.
Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest, neither do the 10-15% performance gains. However i believe that currently the few programs that AMD is faster in (some weird server calculation things) due to their IMC and therefore increased bandwidth, will, upon the release of Nehalem, be Intel dominated due to the shift from FSB to an IMC.
Then again, this is all just speculation. Noone can actually know until we get some decent samples to test!
I agree with you regarding the 45nm process, however, we are not talking about AMD/ATI: we are talking about Intel - who can afford to price their top-end CPUs at 1000$+. Do you think that, if it delivered what it promised, people wouldn't happily spend 600$+ for the lower clocked model? There are even guys buying QX9770 for an unlocked multiplier, I mean, WTF.
And there were people who payed a butt load for Quad FX. There will always be people who buy the most expensive everything. Heck why buy a Ferrari that cost half a million when you can get a Ford GT that will smoke it for only $150k? Why people buy the uber expensive I do not know.
I think what Intel is doing is quite smart. Setting prices at a good point to get more sales faster. This may be because they want to try to phase out the FSB as fast as possible. Or they could just have been working on Nehalem so long that the yeilds are so good that they will still make a butt load at this price point.
And there were people who payed a butt load for Quad FX. There will always be people who buy the most expensive everything. Heck why buy a Ferrari that cost half a million when you can get a Ford GT that will smoke it for only $150k? Why people buy the uber expensive I do not know.
I think what Intel is doing is quite smart. Setting prices at a good point to get more sales faster. This may be because they want to try to phase out the FSB as fast as possible. Or they could just have been working on Nehalem so long that the yeilds are so good that they will still make a butt load at this price point.
Exactly, somethings value is what people are willing to pay for it. There are people who would be willing to pay a great deal of money for a very quick new cpu....if it really is this cheap then it really wont be much quicker. Its not due to intel being nice and thinking of our wallets in a time of hardship.
Us enthusiasts have had it very good the past few years....Core 2 represented a massive jump...as did nVidia 8800 series. Its unrealistic to expect such a jump each new generation. People have been dissappointed with nVidias new offerings because the jump wasn't as big as the previous generation jump. I think people might be a little underwhelmed with intel's new chip simply because we have come to expect a jump like netburst to core2 and i dont think that will happen.
If I remember the Yorkfields they came out priced quite decently. In the $300s for the lowest quad core. Thats not too bad considering the advantages (new process, HK/MG/45nm, and SSE 4.1) it had over Kentsfield.
The 20-50% was in an array of apps. 20% in single threaded is a nice bump but the advantage of 50% in multithreaded apps (and games when the software developers get off their ass) is great.
It was $300 for the lowest quad-core, which had a 5-7% advantage (SSE4.1 is barely used even nowadays) over a Q6600. *NOW* I would get a Yorkfield over a Kentsfield anyday, but not at that time. That's just me, anyway. Also, I don't have that faith in multi-threaded gaming - at least not in the CPU part. Multi-GPUs solutions will probably find their place. Just my 2 cents, again, since we simply can't tell.
Quote :
Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest, neither do the 10-15% performance gains. However i believe that currently the few programs that AMD is faster in (some weird server calculation things) due to their IMC and therefore increased bandwidth, will, upon the release of Nehalem, be Intel dominated due to the shift from FSB to an IMC.
Then again, this is all just speculation. Noone can actually know until we get some decent samples to test!
The problem is that Intel was taking a beating by that time. It's not like they need - or want - to be nice to their customers or need to be competitive (in the desktop arena) right now and, believe me, they always price what they have the higher they can. It's not even like they need any price cuts right now.
Message edited by dattimr on 07-24-2008 at 04:25:26 PM
Still not that bad for 4GB when DDR2 (4gb) of equal memory (1333) is still $100-$160.
I would say in 4 more months the price should drop down a bit more. Add that in with higher bandwidth and Nehalems IMC to take advantage of that (tripl channel will be awesome) Plus the fact that there have not been any true reviews on Nehalem, how can you say its a disapointment?
It's 25-50% faster clock per clock than penryn and it OC's very well on every preview I've seen. Still talking about engineering samples though. It will only use DDR3 which is the major down side unless those prices fall.
They will definitely fall shortly.
From what I read, the Cost of make DDR3 is not really higher, it's just a matter of scale.
DDR2 sells more because of demand and hence the lower price.
DDR3 has been coming down and once Nehalm increases the DDR3 demand, the price will begin to normalize.
---------------
If its good in theory but not in practice,
its not good theory.
Do you not remember the pricing of Conroe when that was released? Very aggressive price strategy that forced AMD to lower their prices. These suspected prices of Nehalem chips do not suprise me in the slightest
They do to me.
P4 was losing market share to K8 by the bucketload before Conroe arrived. Intel had to redress the balance and quick.
Now the only thing Nehalem at that price is doing is taking market share from Yorkfield.
Which doesn't make sense as the Yorkfield (214mm^2) from 2 separate dies will always be cheaper to make than Nehalem (270mm^2 on 1 die).
No - the sub $300 price point can only indicate one thing - a lack of earth shattering performance. Nehalem will not be the AMD-killer that many Intel fanbois (and others) are predicting.
No info on a poor economy? Yeah I dont know where I get these facts, or the fact that Intel has returned to its traditional pricing scheme for Nehalem...
dattimr@gmail.com 
