Q4 2008 for servers, mobiles and X58 coupled versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Q1 2009 for performance/mainstream desktops with Ibexpeak
Q2 2009 for value desktops with Ibexpeak and GPU
Printable View
Q4 2008 for servers, mobiles and X58 coupled versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Q1 2009 for performance/mainstream desktops with Ibexpeak
Q2 2009 for value desktops with Ibexpeak and GPU
Tell that to the software houses that are lagging 2y+ behind cpu development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
availability is the question hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
They know about it. I would not say they are lagging behind as it is difficult and costly. I'm saying this is just the right time to make the implementation and Nehalem is a good marketing product for the purpose given the prospectus.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
Metroid.
man those numbers are AWESOME! i couldnt have even hoped for that much this early. This does not bode well for AMD AT ALL.
I feel that it can't get worse than Barcelona availability fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
AMD did it to itself. AMD bought ATI without any short return investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Companies have to be prepared for the worse as the technology changes everyday and the competition is just in the outdoor waiting for your drop.
AMD had many management issues, paying higher salaries to people who were doing nothing. The cash cows have stopped and AMD have become what we know as of today. A demolished but at least a structured company.
AMD knew about the threat that it would face as Conroe benchmarks were shown earlier on March 2006. So the question is why did AMD buy ATI knowing about threat? Joy Of Life? Excessive Money?
Probably lack of business knowledge of the leadership or executive team , over confidence, perhaps naiveness with hypocrisy.
AMD had its competitive advantage now is history, AMD can not knock over a company that is almost 30 times more valued, miracles may happen after all.
Metroid.
There is not going to be a problem with availability for the enthusiast desktop segment-- only small volumes are required there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Did you also note the various comments over the past few days that Nehalem seems to be ready sooner than expected? I think Q4 was a conservative schedule that they will not have any trouble meeting-- they could probably start in Q3 if they wanted to.
Beckton EX, Q409 IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by alucasa
Really, I think you're off scaling better with 2 dual barceys, and probably enough money for another Q6600 rig. :p:
Answer: AMD: "Damn, we're f*!ked! Let's go grab ATi while we still can."Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Seriously though, hasn't ATi proven to be the AMD saver?
No. To buy them AMD gutted its balance sheet, they basically spent all of its profits from the K8 era and took on a ton of debt as well and they have gotten nothing but losses in return. The former ATI has lost money every single quarter since they were bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I just finished reading through the whole Anandtech article and then came right to this section of the forum thinking I'd post the news for everyone to check out, lol! Like usual I'm far behind the ball as there is already 5 pages here, thankfully I read through a few threads before posting the article! Like most I'm excited about this new archietecture, very impressive especially given the early hardware tested in the article!
IIRC it's something like this :Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Q4 2008 - XE and Xeon DP
Q1 2009 - mainstream
Q2 2009 - low-end with IGP
i was talking about Q1 and Q2, i dont think nehalem is that ready, but it is shaping up quite nicely thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Maybe some chips are in awesome condition and they are trying to send a strong signal they are ready for it, and AMD is not.
altough the initial results look really good, i just hold off til i see some more meaningfull benchmarks
The way the numbers from these tests are presented is totally uninformative but in multithreaded apps Nehalem seems to do great. And SMT scaling is just WOW.
Yes absolutely. Nehalem is a much larger and complex chip than Penryn and also has a lot more logic circuitry. The opposite would be surprising actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
@Shintai and Co --> L3 latency = 39cycles :poke: :welcome:
Actually guys, If you nip over to AMDzone scientia and the_ghost have some pretty compelling theories as to why we should not get to excited about this.
A guy says "I think even the most optimistic person would say AMD is in deep trouble."
and scientia cleverly points out "I would say that anyone who doesn't care about proper testing would say that AMD is in deep trouble."
Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh AMD is still safe anyway. Thanks to scienta thinking outside the box he deduced that AMD need not worry because Nehalem was tested using to many threads which really never happens (((some of the shrewder of you may very well point out that many AMD supporters including sci have eagerly pointed out that phenom was actually a better cpu than penryn or at least viable because under highly multi threaded apps it performers and scales quite well and to be frank single threaded performance is not really important anymore))) and when in the real world k10 with ddr3 will probably compete nicely.
At the end of the day though this is all moot because the_ghost suggests that anandtech is pretty much owned by Intel so all this actually means nothing.
Thank the gods for rational folk http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...?f=52&t=135197
@ GoThr3k
Did you skip this part or did Anand revise it?:confused: Yet, even if performance was the same or slightly less per core, Nehalem ends up being faster due to other improvements. Most apps are Dual Core and WinXP and up uses Dual Core as well. At a minimum, one core runs the OS while another would run a single thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anand
To the other guy, this does sound or read like the same comments during 2006 when C2D was tested by this same person, WOW! After over two years, you'd think they'd learn something by Now.
@the others
Please don't forget Timna had IMC, EV6 is from Alpha, Fusion is a copy of Timna, HT cn be traced back to AMD's RAMBUS license long before Lighting DATA or etc.... Oh brother!
Where is the gaming performance ???. This look to me as core 2 performance + Hyper threading
Hmm, good points over there. There's certainly some educated people on that forum. Thanks for the link! (you do know it's not in marketing's best interest to point to something that legitimately questions these early results, yes?)Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
You mean the CORESPEED L3? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
21.5 ns to get a request back from Phenom's L3 vs. 14.6 ns with Nehalem's 4times bigger cache?
50% faster at 2.66Ghz. And most likely alot faster at higher speeds. :p:
Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana: already 5 pages lol, thought I had missed something. :p:
The memory performance I'm most satisfied with, I've wanted seeing an improvement in this for a while since I like mem performance tweaking. Hopefully timings will become useful to mess with again such as in DDR1 S939 AMD era.
I was really gonna wait for the "tick" version of Nehalem as I bought this Wolfie quite recently anyways but looking at these tests I already start becoming a bit worried if I can resist or not. :rofl:
Reminds me of the Wirth's Law:Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster
:up:
I think he was being sarcastic LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Regardless of how good or bad Nehalem is, he's right that the testing done by Anandtech is incredibly bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
First time I'll consider extreme editions for high clocked Nehalem. >=)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
:rofl: :ROTF: Where is the drying-my-eyes-because-I'm-laughing-to-tears-'cause-these-guys-are-delusional emoticon?
"Proper testing"... heh... That's good stuff... Oh, man, here it comes again! :ROTF: :rofl: Proper testing!
before I looked down at your system specs I guessed you had a AMD cpu. Amazing. :rofl: Only messing with ya man but how far do you think the river in Egypt will run this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
No one is saying that this was a full review, not even anand said that but it does give us some numbers that pretty much make it certain than nehlam will be a monster, No?
Well, not to argue that a carefully pefected study is not completely available... how much data do we have on Deneb given that these proc's are supposedly to come out roughly the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Point is... there are some tests Anand did that are so straight forward even Scientia could not screw them up ... Valve RAD maps, cinebench for example, and considering it was hands on for a day... the amount of info pretty remarkable.
What Anand showed is more than what initially broke at March 06, IDF when Intel let loose some Conroe numbers... Scientia said the same things, and what turned out to be the truth?
Nonetheless, we do not know how Deneb will fair ... so it is in appropriate to call 'AMD dead meat' or 'no more competition'... etc etc. Final numbers will tell the tale.
Jack
By far the biggest benefit Intel has gotten from AMD is from x64. Scary to think Intel told us all that 64bit on the desktop is not needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
K8 didn't copy anything except the concept. AMD took the memory controller and made it mainstream, right down to the budget desktop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
30% is an excellent improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
HAHA good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDisciple
AMD would be in trouble today if they didn't own ATI. K10 would have little or no platform to run on. Look how long it took Nvidia to field a K10 chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
I started that thread over at AMDzone.com. I have been a very strong AMD supporter for years, but I see the writing on the wall. Scientia is a very, very knowledgeable person and has excellent technical understanding. But he also tends to find the silver lining for AMD more often than not. I agree with a lot of what he says yes, but in this instance I think he is grasping a bit. AMD IS in trouble. Their last bastion, the server CPU with IMC and multi-socket scaling due to HT is coming to an end.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I really think AMD's biggest problem right now is their fab tech. If they had their ducks in a row, K10 would probably be running at above 3Ghz with decent power consumption. It is damn near impossible to make up for a 500+ mhz deficit, which is what AMD is dealing with. Never mind that Nehalem is bring improved IPC into the mix.
HOLY :banana::banana::banana::banana: :banana::banana::banana::banana: :banana::banana::banana::banana:
Actually its the way they chose to present the data that bothers me. I guess that might have been to keep Intel happy(Obfuscate the actual numbers as much as possible) but really the only usefull conclusion from these tests is that SMT scales very well and that Nehalem performs as expected in multithreaded applications. No doubt it's going to be a really good chip though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
[OT]BTW if AMD copied the IMC from any company that would be DEC actually[/OT] and that's the last time i'll mention AMD in this thread.
Stone cold killer( :D ) in apps that scale well with multiple threads certainly and Nehalem seems to actually deserve that commentQuote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Please explane what you mean, i.e how the numbers have been Obfuscated to keep Intel happy and also how do these tests have no use except proving smt performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Well if someone was to publish a full featured review of Nehalem at this point in time with detailed numbers Intel would be very very pissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Intel owns DEC IP:) Intel had to agree to license EV6 to AMD or the buyout wouldn't have been approved. I don't think any cares about AMD being mentioned in proper context LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Quote:
RE: No single threaded benchies? by Anand Lal Shimpi, 3 hours ago
Interestingly enough, none of our standard CPU benchmarks are single threaded at all - even the most benign ones are multithreaded (including the games). I did run some single thread Cinebench numbers though:
Nehalem - 3015
Q9450 - 2396
Same tired old FUD from the AMD fanboys we saw the last time with nothing to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Nehalem is and will be another C2 style home run.
Oh please drop the conspiracy crap. We heard this over and over again. Here we have numbers that usually match what we got. Its the same rerun all over again from 2006. Intel wont be pissed, why? This is cheap and free marketing of the best kind. Just like with Core 2. Intel gives them the option to test what they want. AMD is lightyears away in terms of competition so there is nothing to hide.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Absolutely not true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Nehalem is intended to single digit % of quad's market, and for mission to cutt off AMD from 4-way x86 server market!
It's FUDiculous(TM by me :p) to think that Nehalem will go down to E7000/E8000 or even Celeron/Pentium market segments!
Just found this and added a nice little quote to my sig...
Hopefully this is motivation for AMD to step up after Phenom!
i dont know, maybe i missed it, i think singlethread nehalem wil have a 10-15% advantage, but not more, on the multithreaded side however :banana::banana::banana::banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
FUD? What the hell did i say besides the obvious? Why the hell would Intel want a full fledged review months ahead from the launch. Sure the rumors and leaked info help keep the buzz alive but a review now would be really bad marketing and anticlimatic because by the time Nehalem will get out it will already be old news... :shakes:
-OR-Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
It could live up to the hype and make everyone want it??? Marketing 101, Business Management 101, simple stuff here guy. ;)
I mean would you really not want to buy a product b/c its performance specs were shown well before it was available (saying it doesnt change for the worse)? Seriously? :shrug:
Anand has proven to be less, and less informed about what's going on in this industry (I still remember his ridiculous CeBIT "diaries")Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
This sentence: "2009 should hold a new architecture for AMD, which is the only thing that could possibly come close to achieving competition here" further prove that! As far as I'm aware (maybe I've missed some announcement) but AMD for 2009 only plans to further shrink/refine K10 architecture...
You want the WOW effect to happen on or close to release to help maximise sales. Besides whats the point of an NDA on reviews if you wanted all the info out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
So Lynnsfield and Auburndale will cost what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
c’mone Browncoat, do you honestly think that Intel isn’t behind this!?
It’s clear as a day that sole purpose of this “review” is to make anyone considering buying AMD’s 4-way Barcelona, or making plan for 4-way Shanghai, to rethink idea once more, and hopefully go in idle ‘till Nehalem based Xeon is out!
Intel purposely went with Anand and not some specialized server oriented site ‘cos of the chance to make bigger impact… these Intel marketing guys do know really well what and how they are doing what they are payed for!
On the other side this doesn’t do harm to Intel’s current lineup on desktop market, ‘cos desktop market will receive these CPU’s later, much later…
Do note that on the one single-threaded test Anand ran, a Nehalem alpha-silicon part running on a crippled mobo outperformed an identically clocked Penryn by 26%Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Uh, you do realise that 'Nehalem' isn't just Bloomfield? It's an architecture, a collection of modular CPU bits and bobs which they can toss into any market segment. That's the whole point, it's a modular architecture. They'll make low-end dual-core laptop CPUs with integrated Intel graphics next year with this same architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
To say that Intel's official roadmap and product plans are FUD would definitely be stretching it.
I certainly do. And it's an effective strategy for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Awesome. Can't wait to get one.
clock for clock appears to be ~ 36% increase over Penyrn in general.
heres to hoping everything goes multithreaded in 2009!
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
AMD will live on because Intel has no reason to sell these CPUs at any affordable price. The Q9xxxs didn't get released until AMD had the 9850s ready. I think that the mainstream or even the less expensive LGA 1366s won't be around for more than another year. Intel is just going to release another CPU like the QX9650 to taunt AMD for a few months.
Well I'd like to see that official roadmap and transition timeframes from Core to Nehalem architecture, wit appropriate segmentation percentage...Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Point is - this CPU that Anand tested is "Extreme" version of Nehalem, intended for (again) BMW M3 market segment.
I'm aware that more Nehalems are in pipeline, but according to this unofficial roadmap: http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../kaigai01l.gif they all are planed for H2 2K9 (most probably for holiday’s season), and they'll be penetrating market step-by-step, and not by cutting off current lineup.
In that sense AMD's own K10 isn't intended for competing with Nehalem but with Conroe gen. derivates. Currently AMD can wrestle with Intel’s offering in Low-to-Mid end markets, and as long is Nehalem out of that market segment (and somehow I don’t see that Intel can make more money on much bigger Havendale then on Celeron/Pentium+chipset combo) AMD has enough maneuvering space, and it is not in cut-throat grapple of Nehalem, as some people including the Anand are trying to convince us.
This reaches more people period. Sales are all about numbers. The more people you can 'reach' the more sales you will get. This goes back to basic math... so you have 3 things to learn now... :p: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Well, Anand is no FUD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I dont know any roadmaps...so who cares if they got it wrong about AMD's plans. That makes it even WORSE for them!!!! Phenom wont improve clock for clock to surpass Penryn, none the less Neh....
These are sad days. :(
EDIT: What is Montreal?
http://download.amd.com/Corporate/Ma...AnalystDay.pdf (Page 21)
I don't think he means to say that their roadmap does contain a new architecture, but that it should (needs to) contain one to try and make this a competitive race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
:rofl::ROTF::wierd:Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
This has to be the joke of the week.
How come ? According to your mentor Scientia , AMD has the best FABs and process in the world , their APM supermumbojumbo ,etc...Quote:
I really think AMD's biggest problem right now is their fab tech. If they had their ducks in a row, K10 would probably be running at above 3Ghz with decent power consumption....
Moving on to more serious matters , you're partly correct.AMD's process tech on 65nm is actually pretty decent ( although it has 10-15% lower transistor performance than Intel IIRC ).Their problem comes from scaling , or its lack thereof.AMD's 65nm process uses thicket gates than Intel in order to keep leakage under control.By doing so you get excellent power characteristics at low clocks , but it hurts badly when you need high frequency.Basically , once you exit the sweetspot and try to go higher , the power consumption sky rockets.
K10 was designed to run at 2.2-2.8GHz@95w.In reality at 2.3Ghz it needs 95w , 125w for 2.5GHz and 140w for 2.66GHz.Part of the blame is on the process , part is on the design.
By reusing the K8 core , which is pretty complex anyway , and further increasing the complexity ,they've basically said goodbye to any frequency increase.
In multithreaded scenarios , certain parts ( like the L3 ) need to be shared and as a result of arbitration there is an increase in latency.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
IMO you're seriously delusional if you think Intel wants to send a message to its server customers through Anandtech. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
The important ones already have Nehalem servers for testing.
that's a hard true to swallow and too bad for final consumers :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hexus
Anandtech is far and away the best review site on the net. If you question their quality of reviews, then every review site sucks. Don't tell me you read the crap from hardocp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
nope. i ran the benches of his that i could easily duplicate and it looks more like 10-15% improvement clock for clock depending on the benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
someone said this is all because i was running vista 64, but i find it hard to believe that me running vista 64 is going to make my penryn performance 10-20% better clock for clock on every single benchmark used than his penryn performance. :rolleyes:
his posted penryn results are extemely low and unrealistic, especially because the rig i am using has not been tuned and optimized at all yet.
Article won't load at the moment. :(
Uh, did you notice that the Nehalem results used alpha silicon on a CRIPPLED motherbaord with only 1 of 3 memory channels working?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
Then i suppose every review site sucks cos' Anand produced some utterly crap reviews already, the A8R-MVP being one, where they labeled the board OCer's dream and couldn't even figure the board was reverting to 2T when they thought it was 1T :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by therightway
He was talking specifically about Cinebench and it's true that the 64bit version performs better.. Though i'd bet that your right and Nehalem is about 10% faster in single threaded apps
Are you being serious? can you not think of the variables that could give two different computer set-ups different results?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
Please do tell...Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I'm very interested at the variables that would yield a 10%-20% performance increase between two computer systems running the same processor at the same clock speed...
Mobo, Memory, backround apps, processes...he didnt list his clockspeeds...shall I go on? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by TG01
10% out of the hat for Cinebench under Vista 64 vs. 32Quote:
Originally Posted by TG01
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2280813,00.asp
Oops, looks like that one was shot down in a hurry.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Yepp but they have short memories LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
Man , you were being serious:ROTF:. Others have saved me pointing out the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by TG01
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
QX9770 @ stock 3.2Ghz
8GB RAM @ 1066Mhz
Foxconn Blackops
its in my sig. it is NOT at all tuned atm due to problems with the MB.
anyway i did the math so that i could see what clock for clock difference would be.
the only two tests I duplicated were cinebench and pov-ray. all anand's other tests were proprietary and he does not give the info needed to duplicate them, but I saw the exact same result on pov-ray. anands penryn results were way too low on this one as well.
is pov-ray also 10% better on vista 64?? :rolleyes:
If 64bit yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
I tend to think the performance gap will be app dependant. These might range from 8% to 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
I think I am going to wait till after the big release to purchase, one, because I want to wait and see what a little maturation will do, as well as (hopefully) some price rudection, and seecondly I wont have the cash till then regardless. The real question is when to upgrade my graphics, before or after Nehalem.
The one thing that can be said about this chip, is it is a culmanation of all current cpu technology , regardless of who or where it came from, Intel got it on the die first.
It's already about 9 months old.Quote:
Originally Posted by fiveprime
I disagree with most folks. Intel will launch a few None Server Nehalems, maybe the Top two models for the desktop.
2.66GHz one and 2.83 is shown on their Roadmaps for Q4-08.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
Man, if two different systems only have a cpu in common then there mobo, memory & hdd will be different and thats only the hardware, You then have software rangeing from difrent bios,drivers,operating system, apps, app revisions etc.
How you are stunned that any of this could cause a 10-20% discrepancy is stunning me.
for single threaded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
50% is a lot you know
"Cinebench shows us only a 2% increase in core-to-core performance from Penryn to Nehalem at the same clock speed. For applications that don't go out to main memory much and can stay confined to a single core, Nehalem behaves very much like Penryn. Remember that outside of the memory architecture and HT tweaks to the core, Nehalem's list of improvements are very specific (e.g. faster unaligned cache accesses)."
so basically its a penryn when its single threaded, but owns it up when multithreading and smt come into play.
From what i see, the logical cores then, along with the cache latency make the magic, but performance isnt really accross the board, but rather application dependant.
Still for server apps, and crunching / workstation type things, this is gonna be a BEAST. but for desktop, doesnt make sense atm, price wise.
where did you get the 2% number? the single threaded cinebench test shows 25% more performance at the same clock speed?
right now this is the $1200 cpu, so with the resonable priced consumer grade the core2 will still be faster all this shows is that HT works with encoding clock for clock, but i want to see how high it clocks if its not over 3.2-3.3 with air then it wont beat the core2 with its 3.8-4.0, and games dont use a quad now so using 8 cores wont come for at least a year or 2 more
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/int...spx?i=3326&p=7Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
thats 3015 to 2931 so thats 2.6%, and thats not impressive since it has 30-50% more memory bandwidth and the core2 is running with stock 333mhz fsb
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I never said that. You are getting me confused with another member.
I have simply said that Anand's Penryn results were extremely low and not realistic.
and I'm not just guessing at this. I ran the same benchmarks and have seen first hand that his penryn results that he compares Nehalem to are not real world Penryn results.
-edit-
Nehalem will be a great upgrade and I will be one of the first to adopt it, however I take issue with the degree of improvement he is trying to show. It is going to be more like 10%-15%.
That's actually incredibly good.Why ? Because , IMO , Penryn has a better cache subsystem :Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Penryn - 32KB L1 3 cycles , 6MB L2 15 cycles
Nehalem - 32KB L1 4 cycles , 256KB L2 11 cycles , 8MB L3 39 cycles
Nehalem has 4 cycles L1 , that's a lot , but if probably hidden with SMT and other techniques.The small L2 has very good latency , but at only 256KB it's really tiny.The L3 is very large , but also very slow.
Basically , it's far from optimal for single threaded apps ( Core/Penryn are best there ).
To be honest , I expected Nehalem to be slower than Penryn in single threaded apps that aren't BW dependant.This might still be the case , but it looks like Intel did its job.
Hell , even maintaining Penryn single thread performance coupled with K8/K10 scalability ( in fact even better ) makes Nehalem an excellent all around monster.
http://i28.tinypic.com/amth1h.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
Right here.:yepp:
The article has changed since. This is not a $1200 CPU, certainly extreme versions will come at the beginning with a 3.3Ghz clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anand Lal Shimpi
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkruer
Some tests are controversial at some point as we can see by how many times they have been edited but the truth will come soon, Anantech is a great website reviews that tells most of the time the truth despite minor mistakes that happens here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anand Lal Shimpi
Metroid.
its actually quite bad... you forget the memory access latency in your comparisonQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
not to forget all of those cycles are different depending on how large the blocksize and stryde is
Allow me to doubt this.I've looked at other reviews and they all the the Q9450 at around 10200/10500 points in Cinebench 10 32bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...521&cid=2&pg=8
i want to see duel and quad benches and not ones that will do 8, or see HT disabled, this seams like smoke and mirrors to me. this just reminds me of the socket A to 754 were there was no advantage to the 754 but people clamored to it then it was fixed with the 939, and i still dont trust HTQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
as for the benching tri channel and better core to MC bandwidth should balance the cash, but dosnt the c2 have better cash in it and thats out or about to be out, and when u oc the core2 it scales but the NH dosnt look like it (and they didnt change the fsb for the 2.93 so thats questionable to making this marketing and not benching)
Damn, why do I always choose to the worst times to build PCs?
Right when I finished my Dual-Core Athlon rig Core 2 came out.
I was dead set on getting a Q9450, and this has to rear its ugly ass.
I don't think I can wait to Q4. Plus, I'm willing to bet that a Q9450 @ 3.8 can beat this at stock, which is good enough for me...
I wonder if the IMC will be as crippling as it was to A64s OCing.
I'm thinking that a Nehalem + Mobo will cost around $1500 - $1700.
Unless ofcourse Intel will make these 2P and 4P exclusively at launch, you should be able to get a Nehalie for $999 and a mobo for $250 so $1,250 is a much better estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser777
Perkam
I'm not willing to spend more than $350 on a CPU at MOST...
If a Q9XXX can beat a stock Nehalem when OC'd then I'm pretty satisfied because Nehalem won't have the OC headroom.
You know that how ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser777
Ah yes, from Fuad.Don't forget the mountain of salt , though...
Intel will not launch only extreme versions of Nehalem on Q4 2008. It has been showed in many roadmaps that performance chips are also coming in Q4.
Lastest Intel Roadmap.
Metroid.
Damn. Nice benchmark :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Gives me the chills. Cue The Red Dress from The Matrix soundtrack or maybe Meltdown from The Insider soundtrack. I get that "aliens have just landed on your front lawn" feeling. I keep thinking about how seriously badass Intel has become. Born again hard. Too bad most of my apps are single threaded. I take it the gains won't be quite so dramatic for single threaded stuff. As for multicore being the future, not everyone agrees. Donald Knuth, author of The Art of Computer Programming for instance has some issues with the idea. Nevertheless Intel's badassness is indisputable at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anand Lal Shimpi
Maturation as in time on the market, as in, see how it preforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
1k for a cpu? No thanks, not with the 45nm C2Qs being so cheap, especially since when working with a single thread it only gets a small boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Anyone else notice single thread performance only up by 2%?
No surprises here as the memory improved but issues lock it out, single threaded applications will benefit from the memory latency/bandwidth and minimum from the cache etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa
Hope you have had a happy birthday anyway :)
Metroid.
That may be true, but will it be enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Yes, most of the programs use 2 or more cores, no really a reason to worry much about it. I mean benchmark programs like SupePI will soon use more than a core but that will be a feature and not a removal of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fiveprime
Metroid.
In this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3216&p=11
review Penryn QX9450 scores 3297 points for Cinebench 10 1-CPU. This is exactly faster than Nehalem's 3015 points. :d
Multithread scaling are better than C2D's.