New Logo added ... :up:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ous/i7_293.jpg
...
Printable View
New Logo added ... :up:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...ous/i7_293.jpg
...
The cpu cooler mounting dimensions :D?
Sorry for this rough dimensions(cm) :ROTF:
Gainestown & Bloomfield is the same dimensions ... ;)
Gainestown :
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...laneous/D1.jpg
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...laneous/D2.jpg
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...laneous/D3.jpg
Bloomfield :
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...laneous/D4.jpg
...
CPU-Z guys seem to have misunderstood.. Gainestown is Xeon somethingorother, not 'Core i7'. :confused:
It's for temporary I think ... until they releases the Logo for Xeon.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Not to mention "if" Gainestown will part of Xeon category :p:
Thx a much m8 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
Btw does those things oc :D?
Please don't do Quotes with the Pics, geesh!Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lid
Is that just your guess, or do you know more then you are willing to tell? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
QFT. Gainestown will probably be Core i5 and Xeon as Core x5 or something similar :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
No, everything is i7. But there will be 900 series etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
gainestown is a server chip, so obviously it will be named xeon. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
That is just speedstep in action. Put some load on the proc and the multiplier will go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by cryomonkey
Nice, Mine can't execute Sisoft / Everest ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cryomonkey
The rest benches will be you to keep us updating :rofl:
Do what you like, no one insist you :up:
PS : Why your QPI for 3.07GHz is running at 5.86GHz ? :p:
holy crap :eek: memory bandwidth is beyond good and evil...
Where do you Hornet331 see memory bandwidth test?
Versus Penryn, what game & app benchmarks will Nahelem make the biggest impact in?
is that 18x multi wrong?
i have a huge suspicion that these new 'i7' cores will not clock well... might end up to be something like a phenom
fsb is dead
Yes it is but when a 3000mhz cpu is out of the box stronger than the harpertown at 3600 is it a moot point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
The things are huge pal..:up:
Absolutely! Remeber that odl thread where I tried to say better performance will make some folks forget about extreme overclocking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Not being able to overclock like Phenom, I doubt and 2.66GHz is already as fast as a 3 to 3.2GHz Penryn in many cases (what I'm told) so even at stock and less than $300, who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
I think all the naysayers will be quiet when they see someone like Fugger or Hipro show at 4000+ on air.
It will happen folks, trust me on that one.
A 4000 Nehalem will be like a 5000 penryn..:rofl:
Don't worry, its just simply BIOS issue ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cryomonkey
Don't say it was TYAN mobo ... :p:
tuned
I have a question that bothers me quite alot today regarding
lynnfield, i see it has a Built on die Northbridge.. how it will connect to that NB?
with fsb?
Doesn't matter Movieman, you already know they'll find some other lame excuse like slower but smoother LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
It doesn't have a FSB. Everything on die and linked like every other part of the core. It is modular and parts like the north bridge, PCI-E, each of its cores, IMC and etc.... can run independent of each other. Cores should be able to be overclocked all as one or individually. That's why I'm not believing the it will not overclock crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxCactus
sounds like a winner mainstream part, intel did a very smart move makin PCH only on MB and
NB built on die of Cpu..
its very tempting to get a bloomfield but if thats gonna cost alot i see lynnfield as a winner :)
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06...oadmap_update/Quote:
Originally Posted by Register Hardware
Well, the Xeon logo has stayed practically the same between generations, NetBurst, Conroe, Penryn, duo or quad.. So I'd expect them to leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
how about a 3gig nehalem compared to a 4.2penryn in games supporting only two cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
seems like phenom vs x2 to me, and this is intels first shot at integrated memory controllers... shouldnt that mean more heat, more die size, and less ocing headroom?
I realize this is outside your 3GHz to 4.2GHz example but, I hear they've demoed nehalem running air cooled @ ~4GHz :shocked:which theoretically would make it slightly faster then a 4.2GHz penryn running even a two core game (and defiantly faster with software that can use more cores).Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
Now, if you bring price into the picture the penryn may equate to cheaper performance ;)
Don't know! I bought a Wolfdale because I use more Single and Dual threads than 4 or more. I don't multitask because there are 4 computers in my home. If I had a need for 4 cores like many others here do I'd get one. I try to buy the right tool to fit my use pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
More heat, but also more surface area to remove the heat. It is a lot larger than Penryn and thank goodness, no more Hot North Bridges to deal with. Like now. My Wolfdale is running at 30C and the North Bridge is at 42C. But one thing to consider here. Once that part (NB) of the processor is made with a better process and shrank down the 45nm don't expect it to run at 42C.
gotta LINK?Quote:
Originally Posted by cryomonkey
4.0ghz nehalem is the amd killar
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/int...ield,5968.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
Quote:
According to several of our sources, Intel is well on its way with silicon yield, and early samples confirm this. With our own sample in house, we were able to overclock our samples by nearly 1 GHz. What are the performance figures for a quad-core Nehalem system running at nearly 4 GHz? We’ll come back with more as soon as we develop a viable suite of benchmarks to show some real-world gaming and productivity performance.
Mmm....4Ghz and counting.
Sweet now i wanna see dual gainestown ocing results!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Does anybody have everest memory bandwidth tests with Nehalem and that 3-channel DDR3?
If Tom's Hardware can get 4000 then one of the guys here can top 5000..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
yea, me too and for more reasons than you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lid
I have a request in for one of those boards to review..:up:
You're not the only one who works for a hw site and writes reviews :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
The best of luck to you!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by s0lid
so what do you guys think a crossfire 4850 setup, 4gb of DDR3, and nehalem cpu/mobo would cost?
around $1,500 USD?
It should still come down to what features you want? If the board looks like a Gigabyte DS4 you have one price, if it looks like an Asus MaximumPrice might be $450. Motherboards are the only unknown part of the equation. I think Crossfire 4850s might be under $300 by the 4th Quarter. Mine was $170 shipped. If I trusted rebates, I could have gotten it for about $150.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
QFT! Got the wife an 8GB iPhone for our 25th Anniversary, it is Silver LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
QFT!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl: No doubt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
intel Ganestown rely worth it? rely worth the upgrade (CPU / memory / etc) ? i hear that Desktop Nehalem will lunch in November... but wath about the Xeon Ganestown ? I'm consideing in buying a nice gift before Xmass.
I wold rather buy dual Ganestown , bether value in time
Dell will release their new PowerEdge R710 Server based on dual gainestown in november. So maybe a launch in October should be possible. Nehalem is always worth the upgrade. ;)
cu, BitpowerPM
Hey, I heard this too!Quote:
Originally Posted by BitpowerPM
Everest is not a hard mountain to claimb any more!!!! :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogPO
:shocked: <== you when you see the OC memory results!
hahhhaa .. just teasing!
@Drwho?
you mention before that some DDR3 memory makers are not following the proper reference/guidelines in their DDR3 modules do you have list to those manufacturers that follow the reference/guidelines ?
and also is it possible that those memory makers that follow the reference/guidelines has a more capable Modules specially when overclocking
thanks for the reply I am setting up a built for Nehalem so i need a little info,
planing to wait for the Asus ROG x58 board but if other board makers step up to the plate
I will consider them as well the more the merrier :p:
@ anyone
I have a question about tri-channel memory. Since we all know that Nehalem will allow for 32GB/s of memory bandwidth in tri-channel mode (assuming three sticks of DDR3 1333MHz @ 10.6GB/s each), will it also be possible to run 32GB/s in dual-channel with two sticks of DDR3 2000MHz (16GB/s each)?
The reason I ask is because DDR3 2000MHz sticks are still pricey, and I was wondering if I could get two now and wait for a third down the road.
I don't think so..That's think not know.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
I think it will run at 2/3 of max with 2 sticks and remember, this was designed for DDR3-1333 not 2000.. You may get better than 2/3 of max but I don't think you will get the full benefit without using 3 sticks..
The way memory works....Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
Probably the easiest, though not entirely correct but conceptually relevant, way to view this is like a striped raid array. The concept is that you can improve BW by writing segments of data in parallel (divided into stripes) across the array.
Memory works similarly, if you have one stick filling one channel, each stick gives 64-bit data transfers per transaction, and because it is double data rate, it transfers the information on the rising and falling edge of the clock, so while the physical clock (as an example) of say DDR2-800 is 400 MHz, the transaction rate is effectively 800 MHz (2x the frequency for rising and falling transfers). So at 800 Mhz, 64-bit gives you 800x64/8 = 6400 MB/sec or 6.4 GB/sec.
Now add two sticks, and "stripe" them such that data can now be transfered to both sticks concurrently (again, this is not quite correct, but conceptually ok) ... effectively, the bus width is now 128-bit so the data rate is for DDR2-800 would be 800x128/8 = 12800 MB/sec or 12.8 GB/sec (this is of course theoretical).
DDR3-1333 in single, dual and triple channel modes:
single = 1333x64/8 = 10.6 GB/sec
dual = 1333x128/8 = 21.2 GB/sec
triple = 1333x192/8 = 32 GB/sec
DDR3-2000 in single, dual, and triple would be:
single = 2000x64/8 = 16.0 GB/sec
dual = 2000 x 128/8 = 32 GB/sec
tripple = 2000x192/8 = 48 GB/sec
Lengthy, verbose explanation, but yeah .... dual channel would yield a theoretical memory data bandwidth of 32 GB/sec.
Will this be optimum? Who knows, theoretical BW is not the same as actual BW ... it depends on the quality of the memory, memory controller, and there is some BW taken up if you turn on ECC protection for the extra error correction bits.
There will be loads of information available when the products actually find their way into the hands of reviewers and enthusiast ... I can't wait! It will be interesting.
Jack
But wouldn't have to raise the Timings (higher latency) for two channels of DDR-2000? Wouldn't this negate some of the extra bandwidth (performance wise)?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
The cache and prefetchers makes memory latency almost irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Latency is a temporal feature .... where as clock is quantized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
For example, latency for DDR2-1067 C5 is lower than DDR2-800 C4 ...
4* 1/800 = 5 ns latency
5* 1/1067 = 4.68 ns latency
It depends on the memory,
DDR3-1333 C7 (which is common, though expensive) is 5.25 ns
DDR3-2000 C9 (which is also common) is 4.5 ns latency
These are per transaction, there are other latencies that bring the total up quite substantially.
Though, Shintai is correct, large caches and good prefetchers hide some of that latency overall, to the point that it is not a huge concern.
Overall, dual channel DDR3-2000 C9 will out perform DDR2-800 C4 latency wise, and C8 will be outstanding ram.
C8 of course will be the uber, uber expensive stuff: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820145210
i think the sweet spot will be DDR3-1600 with CL7. It cheap (4gb is only 180€) and has a better availability than super highend DDR3-2xxx stuff.
Remember we want 12GB not 4GB :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I'm pretty happy with 4-8 Gb myself :p: I just want to get my hands on one of these already.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Eller
3 is enough for me for the next c.a. 3 years. 12??? Useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Speak for yourself. Even if someone wants them as memory for Vista's superfetch, is justified ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
well im planing on buying 3 kits anyways :pQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
plus i need a copy of vista ultimate 64bit, else its a waste. :D
:) I am planning the same thing 12Gb of 6 x 2 GB :)
So it is optimal to fill 3 slots if going for lvl 1 of performance and then filling all 6 gets lvl 2?
Said differently let's take a physical 6gb target memory.
Are you better off going 3x2gb or 6x1gb on the new mem controller?
I wonder if we'll have 3x2gb kits around launch time.
What about 3x4GB kits? If they clock well... :D
EDIT: wait, there are no 4GB DDR3 sticks out yet, only DDR2 :doh:
I won't object to those kits either but my wallet would:(.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Thank both of you guys! So Intel downsized the total amount of Cache/s because IMC meant, no need to hide old generation GTL+ or etc...... But since all of the parts of the core and cache are asynchronous, there will be some kind of latency added back, right? At least that's been the case in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I just hope ubber expensive RAM on Nehalem shows its worth. So that hasn't been the case on the old old system/s. There might be better ones, but here's one that came close to what I saw first hand.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...ddr3-1333.html
I can't wait to see how Nehalem speeds up all of the out of sync features. Now before a certain person points out the obvious, I know FSB and Nehalem's IMC have almost nothing in common. So skip it! The memory controller still has to talk to RAM the same way, not matter where it is.Quote:
DDR3-1333 gives 2% performance gain to the QX9650. However, the QX9770 gains just 1.5% in this case, despite its faster FSB.
The most likely explanation is that in case of 1333 MHz FSB (real clock rate—333 MHz) and DDR3-1333 (real clock rate—667 MHz), the memory indeed operates at 667 MHz (FSB:DRAM = 1:2). But in case of the 1600 MHz FSB in the QX9770 (real clock rate—400 MHz) and DDR3-1333, the FSB:DRAM ratio is 2:3, so the real memory clock rate is just 600 MHz (so we actually get DDR3-1200).
In its turn, the QX9650+DDR2-800 combo uses the "awkward" FSB:DRAM ratio of 5:6, while the QX9770+DDR2-800 combo is operating synchronously—1:1. Thus, DDR3-1333 gets a performance bonus on the 1333 MHz FSB, while DDR2-800 gets it on the 1600 MHz FSB.
Naw, I'll stick with 6GB! Now if I were using VT and other stuff, sure 12GB might be cool!Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Base on Intel and AMD current platforms because the people that has the x58 board and Nehalem CPU is still under NDA till the 1st or 2nd week of October I think it is the second. if you go for an overclock the less Modules you have the higher the chance of an OCQuote:
Originally Posted by Anemone
But if you look at the specification of the Nehalem base CPU
Nehalem's IMC can handle Single , Double and Triple channel memory maybe they could drop us a bread crumb as to which is optimal.
but by means of optimal what are you pertaining to?
I think you guys looking for raw speed( Da benchas) will be better off with 3x1 gig sticks and leave the 3x2 gig sticks to the guys for mainstream use.
I'm just looking at the cost of 6x1 gig for the dual boards and cringing..:shakes:
according my own Core i7 testing, is this Nehalem chip is some cases slower then Core 2 ...especially in single-tread aplications. In muti-thread programs is performance gain huge, but in some Games, software ... is Core 2 at the same frequency better ...
Nehalems advantages - great performance in memory demanding aplications (Photoshop, compressing, databases) - integrated memory controller
- excelently powerfull in multi-thread aplications ... (video encoders, benchmarks) - new prefetcher and improvements of Core
- great performance scalling with additional CPUs in servers using (like AMD Opterons have) - QPI bus and IMC
disadventages - tragical small L2 cache, slow L3 cache, clear routing to servers then desktop, huge power consuption, +/- same performance in Games, single-thread aplications, in some cases is Nehalem worst then Core 2 at the same frequency.
Now why would it be that? There are lots of improvements to each individual core as well.. So, fine, the pipeline is two stages longer, but still. And then there's 'Turbo' which should be nice as well.
Would be funny if it was another 'Prescott' though. :D
wow really? we just need more peeps with Core i7 to give us some more previews. one question, if the NDA is 2nd week of october, when is the release date? like a few weeks after right? which means maybe november?
i don't wanna get a yorkie/p45 after waiting this long lol, and selling off my maximums/q6600
Answer is a cache ... penryns have big and fast L2 cache, Nehalem have L2 fast, but very small ... thats problem because shared is slow L3 cache ... this is biggest disadvantage of Nehalem Core for common aplicationsQuote:
Originally Posted by bowman
That was expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Anyway , with Core 2 like performance in single threaded apps , healthy boost in multithreaded ones and good scaling it will be a monster.
Nehalem is a monster, performance in some programs are shocking :p: ... but especially in games is Core 2 still great (and mostly better) choice ...
Any reason why I should buy kitted RAM vs. regular OEM sticks if I don't plan of OC the RAM?
And one more Q: The difference between CL7 and CL7 DDR3 1600 here is like 30% in price (cca 75$ more). How much of an actual real life system performance do you guys think we shall get from choosing CL7 over the cheaper CL9 memory?
Oh, OH!
OBR you said that the power consumption is huge! How so? How much vs. the system you compared it to? And what was the comparing machine built of?
Absolutely none.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
The results should be mixed overall --- like you said, single threaded games will not see much, if any, and could actually be lower -- can you make a statement comparing a a single threaded game to a multithreaded game at resolutions (and using a GPU) that checks the CPU capabilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
Example... say FEAR vs UT3?
all the big memory players are doing it, by 3 packaging are ready, i was showing them at IDF.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Linchpin
Awesome, thank you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
well since on wu of rosetta can take up to 500mb or ram and with nehalem it can use up 8 threads -> thats 4 gig alone for rosetta ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
count in windwos vista, and a game and your beyond 6 gig. :D
I don't do rosetta anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
That POS Baker doesn't deserve help from anyone.
When you bust your balls to help someone and then they spit on you it's time to leave and most of us said goodbye to that ass.
Sorry, but thats the truth.
I do WCG and 6 gig will be more than plenty to do 16WU at a time on a dual socket Nehalem.
That's 100% not true.... everything in addition to an in-order, simple pipeline is to combat memory latency. That's the whole purpose of out-of-order pipelines: to find work to do while waiting for a load to return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
EDIT: To prevent people from nitpicking me: yes, OoO processing was first invented by Tomasulo at IBM to combat long FP latencies, but now load instructions are the main reason why OoO is still mainstream. If you have ever designed an OoO processor, you would know that the overhead is massive compared to a nice and simple in-order processor.
Ideal server CPU and for MTH
Thanks Shintai!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I had a feeling that kited RAM and low CL was even less important than in DDR667 days.
I don't think Nehalem will be another Prescott. But it seems strange to have crippled the L2 by such a large amount. L3 shared on all 4 cores is good, but certainly the value the L2 was playing was known. It's going to certainly be interesting to see where the i7 does well and where it does not before pushing the "buy" button...
Over at pc games hardware there was an article about overclocking Nehalem to 4 ghz with an extreme processor but it took 1.7 volts to reach that speed. :eek:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6..._overclocking/
Better be a one-off..
1.7V to reach 4GHz on the Idiot Edition, mediocre single-threaded performance..
If this is all true, at this point I'll end up waiting for Nehalem solely for the Core 2 price drop. :mad: Oh well, one can hope it's a combination of clueless OCers and early silicon.. :yepp:
And they also say that it is stable on aircooling @ 1.7V. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.BSEL
Obviously something is wrong with that report. Not to mention that there is absolutely no way Nehalem will require an insane amount of voltage to hit 4GHz, while the latest Core 2s can hit 4GHz at 1.2-1.3V no problem. The core is pretty much the same, and with an unlocked multiplier the changed infrastructure should not be a bottleneck.
Not so sure myself ... the IDF technical presentation revealed that Nehalem implemented all static CMOS for their circuit. Frankly, I am not well read on the difference between domino or static logic circuits... though I am studying up so I can hopefully bring some better explanation on the differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
In a nutshell, Intel used static logic for the benefit of power consumption, taking advantage I suspect of the strong PMOS performance. When I have a better handle on the physics and the advantages, disadvantages I can speak more intelligently about the topic. Generally speaking, static CMOS circuits do not lend as well to clocking, from what I have been gathering so far.
Jack
My first impressions with own Nehalem ...
1. BIOSes and whole platform is still very immature ...
2. Only little raised reference clock causes massive unstability ...
3. Ocing of locked-multi Nehalems will be a problem ... Reference clock of Bus is not like a FSB - my max stable clock is 140MHz from 133MHz :down:
4. If you want great clocking, you need a Extreme chip with unlocked multi
5. With these early BIOSes is Memory performance poor (or Everest dont know how to measure it?)
6. Power consuption is in idle with all power savings great, but in fully load is far away from 45nm Quads ...
7. Max stable ocing was on my chip about 3500MHz ...
8. Performance is various, read my previous posts in this thread ...
9. We have two months to launch, and i believe Intel will do many improvements to that date. Will see next month, with new BIOSes and maybe different mobo ...
Nice summary OBR. Thanks!
The best I've seen this far.
:)
Yeah, I must say, that's a great summary and also lines up with the slightly cloudy leaks elsewhere.
1. Static logic leaks less, thus voltages don't seem that dramatic? This factor is a pretty big departure from Penryn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
2. Bloomfield like Barcelona is a big core. Big dies normally dissipate heat easier (provided distant hotspots and all) compared to Penryn/Wolfdale.
3. It's not as simple as that. Or OBR and co. would be getting 4Ghz OCs too.
Overclocking has NEVER been exact. Results can differ on processor from the same batch as seen with the Opteron 165's. My bud got 450MHz out of his 3500+, pull his out and stuck my 3500+ in his rig and only got 120MHz that was barely stable 90MHz stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
You are right about the larger surface area.
I meant that the core became more complex, used more power and likely went in a different direction than clock scalability (at least for 45nm) compared to the Core 2 Duo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Was comparing relative OCs, nevermind if they were consistent averages or not. I mean, E0s hit 4G on stock. So that's a pretty big shocking change they applied right there.
QFT! I'm shocked as well. But there's no rush for me to buy anything yet. Even my C0 will do 4GHz with almost no more voltaged added and on a very cheap $89 motherboard, hehehehe! I'm running at stock because I like it quieter better. Mine is almost dead silent with no silent tricks at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Since Yorkfield is so smooth I wonder if Dunnington's gonna get more attention for a while. :D
Heck, they probably perform better with less (or equal) power usage.
Give any of the Intel systems a shot? See for yourself. Some of the "smoothness" or the lack there of can be attributed to user skillz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia