Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad on Montevina vs Quad on Nehalem. Pissed!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 24, 2009 7:59:25 PM

Having just acquired a montevina I have been fuming with every piece of news that has tubled in from the Nehalem front. Everything spells 2x improvement in performance over Penryn/Montevina. WTH?? This isn't like intel. They never release anything that's 2x improvement in performance. And I'm stuck with a Montevina???
Worst of all, the architecture is so different there is no hope of upgrading for me, I have to sell my long awaited laptop to get on the upgrade train.
So, questions.
Do intel intend to keep releasing upgraded processors on the previous architecture for a while yet or are they switching their operations entirely? Talking about laptop processors here.
What do I need to replace in order to make my Montevina laptop Nehalem-Compatible?
How does a Nehalem quad compare with a Montevina quad for gaming purposes and workstation use?
March 24, 2009 8:13:58 PM

And can I emulate hyper-threading with software. I just don't see why we have montevina quad-cores with no hyper-threading.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 11:03:18 PM

Nehalem will come to laptops, but it will be a while. You won't be able to make your laptop Nehalem compatible though - almost everything about it is different. As for emulating hyper-threading in software, you can't. It doesn't matter though, unless you have a program that would benefit from more than 4 threads.

Related resources
March 24, 2009 11:38:03 PM

Well Connor if this is any comfort to you, Nehalem CPUs will only benefit from multi-threaded applications. This means on laptops, you'll see 5~10% improvement at best. Penryn is still the best chip for mobile applications for the next year or so.
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2009 2:29:22 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Well Connor if this is any comfort to you, Nehalem CPUs will only benefit from multi-threaded applications. This means on laptops, you'll see 5~10% improvement at best. Penryn is still the best chip for mobile applications for the next year or so.


True, but Nehalem does use less idle power, so will have a longer battery life. Performance isn't its only benefit.
March 25, 2009 12:02:53 PM

Comforted.

Quote:
Nehalem will come to laptops, but it will be a while.


Should I expect more innovation on the Penryn front until then? And what about after Nehalem hits laptops. What would you guess Intel would do with the Penryn line?

I guess I just don't like the idea of having acquired a dead-end so to speak. Especially when I had sort of set my sights on upgradability when choosing my machine.
March 25, 2009 11:35:45 PM

cjl said:
True, but Nehalem does use less idle power, so will have a longer battery life. Performance isn't its only benefit.


That is only true when comparing to a desktop quad core processor. The laptop Penryn quad core has the maximum TDP of 45W. So comparatively Nehalem will still have higher idle power.

We'll definitely see multiple innovations when mobile Nehalem launches, but I don't think it warrants throwing your laptop out and purchasing a new one. After all, not many programs out there really benefits from 4 cores, let alone 8 threads. Most laptops with quad cores are really just for the "bling" factor.
March 26, 2009 1:23:48 AM

Is there any reason for Intel to keep building on the Penryn architecture after Nehalem?
a b à CPUs
March 26, 2009 2:07:48 AM

yomamafor1 said:
That is only true when comparing to a desktop quad core processor. The laptop Penryn quad core has the maximum TDP of 45W. So comparatively Nehalem will still have higher idle power.

We'll definitely see multiple innovations when mobile Nehalem launches, but I don't think it warrants throwing your laptop out and purchasing a new one. After all, not many programs out there really benefits from 4 cores, let alone 8 threads. Most laptops with quad cores are really just for the "bling" factor.


I was referring to the mobile Nehalem, when it comes out.
a c 127 à CPUs
March 27, 2009 8:27:33 AM

Connor MacLeod said:
Is there any reason for Intel to keep building on the Penryn architecture after Nehalem?


No. Nehalem is their future. Penryn is the past. Distant past TBH. The reason why Nehalem can give 2x performance in some apps is because it has a IMC with very high memory bandwidth plus the HT.

No there is no way to emulate HT for a Penryn based CPU. That is a CPU specific function.

So you best bet is to sell the CPu then get a Nehalem based one when it comes out. And Yes Intel is capable of releasing something that gives 2x the performance much like AMD is capale. They just wait a bit to gain profit off of their current tech to do so.
April 11, 2009 12:34:30 AM

Conner,

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who got F'ed by Apple.

I bought a 8-core Xeon with 32GB of DDR2 800 Mhz Memory when it was announced just a little over a year ago as the "New Generation".

Now Apple that this f'ing new machine that just has depreciated the performance of my huge investment in just a few months time.

This is just plain wrong and unfair to the Consumer.

I've talked to Apple 3 times, and although in every other avenue of life I always get a kind lady to speak to me, every single time I've called Apple to ask why they didn't forwarn me before a $26,000 investment, is "We cannot upgrade your system".

I told her she's talking like a Robot and I'm looking for some compromise given the level of my investment and the level at which Apple and Intel have screwed me over.

MAKES ME WANT TO BUILD A NVIDIA SUPERCOMPUTER BASED ON AMD'S AND GIVE INTEL *AND* APPLE THE FINGER AND JUST GO WITH LINUX AND USE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LIKE BLENDER.

Freakin Madoff Greedy people, screwing other people over.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2009 1:01:56 AM

anony333 said:
Conner,

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who got F'ed by Apple.

I bought a 8-core Xeon with 32GB of DDR2 800 Mhz Memory when it was announced just a little over a year ago as the "New Generation".

Now Apple that this f'ing new machine that just has depreciated the performance of my huge investment in just a few months time.

This is just plain wrong and unfair to the Consumer.

I've talked to Apple 3 times, and although in every other avenue of life I always get a kind lady to speak to me, every single time I've called Apple to ask why they didn't forwarn me before a $26,000 investment, is "We cannot upgrade your system".

I told her she's talking like a Robot and I'm looking for some compromise given the level of my investment and the level at which Apple and Intel have screwed me over.

MAKES ME WANT TO BUILD A NVIDIA SUPERCOMPUTER BASED ON AMD'S AND GIVE INTEL *AND* APPLE THE FINGER AND JUST GO WITH LINUX AND USE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LIKE BLENDER.

Freakin Madoff Greedy people, screwing other people over.

It was a new generation as of about a year ago. It used the 45nm Xeons based on the Core 2 architecture, and those were only introduced around december of 07. If you honestly expected it to still be on top a year later, it isn't Apple's fault, it's your own. Similarly, if you bought a fully loaded Nehalem Mac Pro right now, in a year, it won't be nearly as good as the 32nm Westmere Mac Pro that will probably be out then. New stuff is released all the time, and it is usually faster than the old stuff, often by a fairly significant margin. It isn't Apple's problem if you didn't know that.

(The funny thing is that I hate apple - they just don't deserve the blame in this case).
April 11, 2009 3:13:11 AM

Conner,

Do you know if I can take 16GB off my MacPro (in Riser A), and put it in a custom built AMD Box running at the highest Memory speed possible? I believe someone said that DIMM 800Mhz Memory could be run at faster speeds on a different motherboard.

What I'd like to do is build a Machine that has the fastest AMD processors, and a motherboard that can use 16GB of my 32GB of Memory, and I will add 3 NVIDIA Cards, as they are doing a promotional offering 50% off their GPU cards.

This is my memory configuration from my MacPro3,1, Quad-Core Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz, 12MB per processor L2 cache. I would like to thank you in advanced for any build your own kits. I know CRN came out with an article on the ultimate PC in March, using the Intel i7.

Riser-A
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 1, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 2, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 3, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 4, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz

Riser-B
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 1, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 2, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 3, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 4, 4GB, DDR2 F8-DIMM 800Mhz

I sure would appreciate it if you could give me some details on how I can take that 16GB or Riser-B RAM and build a machine with 1-3 NVIDIA GPU's and either an i7 or AMD processor. I'm not a hardware guy, i've obviously make a mistake in purchasing anything from Apple.

My needs are specifically related to the 960 cores in total available in 4 NVIDIA GPU's ultimately, as I'm involved in a Signal Processing project which involves 72 channels of audio I/O.

And I have virtually no money at this time.

I know TigerDirect.com is sending out these e-mails about a $999 i7 machine, but I'd like to get one that can take a Blender Rendering and perform it as fast as possible.

I won't be buying anything more from apple. I'll purchase an Android Device when the appropriate one comes out and one of those Super Rugged laptops with solid state drives (I know the MacBook Pro has solid state drives, but I think the one I'm referring to is Fujitsu or Panasonic).

I'm just going back to 64-bit Windows, and Apple and Intel can kiss my azz.
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2009 3:42:14 AM

Those are FB-DIMMS. They will only work on Intel older generation Xeon systems. AMD systems use non-buffered RAM. You'll need new RAM for your new system, though I don't see why you need a new system. Just because yours isn't the absolute fastest doesn't mean it needs replacement - an 8 core Core architecture Xeon setup with 32GB of RAM is still quite a bit faster than most current new systems.
July 7, 2009 9:26:03 PM

Quote:
This isn't like intel. They never release anything that's 2x improvement in performance. And I'm stuck with a Montevina??? Worst of all, the architecture is so different there is no hope of upgrading for me, I have to sell my long awaited laptop to get on the upgrade train. So, questions. Do intel intend to keep releasing upgraded processors on the previous architecture for a while yet or are they switching their operations entirely?


Finally, someone who agrees with me.

I usually get some piss-pants guy who rants and raves at how stupid I was to get my 8-core Xeon released as "The fastest Mac on the planet" and yet, an UNPRECEDENTED event, unlike those shallow minds that quote Moor's law, here's what's really going on.

1. Apple saw the power entering the market with NVIDIA GPU's and refused to certify them.

2. Why? Because INTEL and Apple are tied at the Hip now. Apple has done many quick releases before and other tricky practices such as $499 iPhone, then 2 weeks pass, $299 iPhone and had to digress, but they aren't on this one. I've talked to them many times and they say "Too bad"

3. INTEL has already been found guilty of paying off Vendors in EU to NOT USE AMD and were fined $1.45B.

4. I will NEVER go back to INTEL again - nor Apple. Apple has made a grave mistake by staking their future on INTEL Processors (besides the iPhone). I've always loved Apple, but not now, since spending $26k on a Film Production machine that required max specs and then a few months later, "NEHALEM" and a Totally Re-Architectured I/O.

5. Why the Rearchitectured I/O? Well because AMD purchased ATI, and now has ATI Crossfire technology which is great but too bulky in PCI Slots compared to the Tesla S1070 rackmount that plugs into 1 PCI Slot and has the power of 960 cores and 4 GPU's. CUDA is a far better language than any other GPU.

6. So Apple is doing Intel, Intel is trying to kill AMD, and AMD which I hope does well is competing against NVIDIA.

My Vote is for NVIDIA and either Windows 7 64-bit or Linux 64-bit.

I'll use this Lack-INTEL Rotten Apple MacPro for now, but I'm self-building a new machine.

Corporate Greed. This is driven by Intel making baby steps in processors and Apple Unethically and I will complain to the FTC, Predatory to the Consumer in this Economy.

Apple, offer an AMD Processor, or be at risk.

INTEL, Your Screwed in the EU, and you'll be hunted down in your practices here in the US.
August 24, 2009 3:55:34 PM

I feel your pain, and yet ...

I started whining about CPU performance on the first computer I ever used, a PDP 11/20. I'm still whining today despite having more than a 100,000x improvement in CPU speed. I understand, and share, the need for hardware speed, but there's another side to this.

I do system performance tuning for a living. Typically when someone has a slow application or website there is more than 100x of unnecessary slack or overhead ranging from coding errors, infrastructure choices, that can be easily adjusted.
So when I hear about your $26k film production machine I wonder if you have done everything you can to improve its performance without adding hardware?

Mail me on longtimecoder_AT_yahoo-d0t-com if you want to talk offline
!