And Intel doles out the news a little at a time, making publications their lackey for repeated marketing communications (newsvertisements). And I will march to their tune too as I try to slank my thirst for real information about the next big change in desktops.
TurasIt is interesting that they say LGA1366 is the new socket. I thought there were going to be two new sockets?
As far as I know,there is going to be a high end server socket,desktop socket(LGA1336),and a laptop socket.Pretty much like it's been with Intel's current CPU sockets.
August 21, 2008 11:26:51 PM
Nothing in the way of these new features really indicates revolutionary performance, last time I read a benchmark article on here about Nehalem, it was 10% faster than Conroe(although when Penryn came out it was also 10% faster than Conroe....), and there was pretty much a refusal to compare Nehalem to an identically clocked Phenom, only the fastest available stock-clockspeed Phenom(perhaps the difference would've been unimpressive...), and of course, identically clocked 4 year old chips...
Let's remember from the Pentium IV days that Intel is the king of marketing(well, maybe next to Apple ).
August 22, 2008 2:21:07 AM
JayD....and there was pretty much a refusal to compare Nehalem to an identically clocked Phenom.
The lowest clocked Nehalem that I'm aware of is 2.66GHz, perhaps Intel should use idle mode or downclock the chip to compare to a FUDnom?
And Penryn was essentially a shrink of Conroe - perhaps you could remind us all how much performance (clock for clock, as folks like you seem to be locked into), AMD got from the 65nm K8 shrink over the 90nm K8's? Here's a reminder - there was no difference! Power was a bit better (not as much as Penryn vs Conroe) and there was no performance gain (unlike Penryn vs Conroe)
And frankly - clock for clock... who cares? If Intel ups the speed show me top bin vs top bin and mainstream vs mainstream. Clock for clock is a nice academic study to measure chips that are clock limited (Phenoms?). Perhaps we should take these chips down to the 333MHz-1GHz range so we can compare them to P2's and P3's?
Come to think of it how much faster is a dual core K10 vs a dual core K8, 'clock for clock'? Oh that's right AMD didn't even bother releasing 65nm K10 dual cores - but I'm sure it is an impressive difference as there really is no reason why AMD would want to release faster dual core chips, right? Who needs those pesky higher ASP dual core chips?
August 22, 2008 11:42:18 AM
LOL, any defense of that particular benchmark article should pretty much prove who signs your paycheck.
People have been OCing Phenoms to 3.0 - 3.5 Ghz, why can't we have an OCed Phenom comparison? and Penryn was NOT just a die shrink, there were plenty of differences, they just did not amount to any substantial performance gains.
Intel always said that AMDs features (Hypertransport, etc...) didn't amount to any significant advantage over Intels dated FSB platform architecture, what if they were right? AMDs IMC may have been a limiting factor in their inability to clock higher, the IMC takes up a lot of silicon, and typically will be running at full speed during heavy loads(re: high power consumption/heat dissipation), it's entirely possible that a die-shrink will allow them to catch up this go round.
People said the same thing about Core before it came out. Do not fear Nehalem will be all that AND a bag of chips...
And about this triple channel RAM, it makes me think why not just give each stick of RAM its own channel like a SATA interface ? (would be hard to implement and expensive I know but the performance....)