Nehalem-EP......BLOOMFIELD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

The X2 doesnt work each time. It got the same driver limitations and its just a matter of time before they are equal with profiles and such.

And the "SLi Processor" is basicly a PLX chip of nVidia. PCIe switch, nothing more, nothing less.

---

It did for Anand, check out the link?

I don't care if it is a BTX_LX chip, the end result all that matters. Don't want any chip like nVidia's any mobo I buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Look, I didn't say it was magical and clearly said MAYBE IT IS NEEDED.:up:

CF scales better because ATI started with the Dongle and corrected it from the ground up. Maybe nVidia didn't. But even in AMD's case, checkout those 4870 X2 vs 2 4870s in CF?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3354&p=1

Now please notice that excellent Bridge chip used on X2? It doesn't matter if this was added to two cards or not. The X2 card works every time, the SLI and CF doesn't. I'd take X2 any time. Sorry but 2 X2's are kind of Crazy in most cases.

If I wanted X58, and I do want it, I'm happier with one 4870 X2 than two of either nVidia or AMD cards. So I don't want or need a NF200 on the board.

---

I know, you were playing devil's advocate, I was just playing along. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowman

I know, you were playing devil's advocate, I was just playing along. :)

---

Cool!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

The X2 card works every time, the SLI and CF doesn't. I'd take X2 any time. Sorry but 2 X2's are kind of Crazy in most cases.

If I wanted X58, and I do want it, I'm happier with one 4870 X2 than two of either nVidia or AMD cards. So I don't want or need a NF200 on the board.

---

The bridge chip is absolutely not needed, the lock is in the drivers. That, and also the fact that the cards work better without the chip, this is just a dirty solution to enable SLI on X58, just like in Skulltrail. An unneeded chip in the chain can only make things worse.

I don't know about the 4870X2 until I test it, but I'll tell you one thing: the 3870X2 does NOT work well. You get about the same FPS of 3870CF, and you get the exact same problems and incompatibilities. Now I have hopes for the microstuttering problem after looking at the early Sampsa's tests, but the 'you need a CF profile for each game, and it has to work well' thing still scares me, and I bet I'll face the same situation I faced when I used 3870CF and 3870X2 for a few weeks with 4870CF and 4870X2. The Crossfire Sideport has nothing to do with this, as it's only a connection between the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

The bridge chip is absolutely not needed, the lock is in the drivers. That, and also the fact that the cards work better without the chip, this is just a dirty solution to enable SLI on X58, just like in Skulltrail. An unneeded chip in the chain can only make things worse.

I don't know about the 4870X2 until I test it, but I'll tell you one thing: the 3870X2 does NOT work well. You get about the same FPS of 3870CF, and you get the exact same problems and incompatibilities. Now I have hopes for the microstuttering problem after looking at the early Sampsa's tests, but the 'you need a CF profile for each game, and it has to work well' thing still scares me, and I bet I'll face the same situation I faced when I used 3870CF and 3870X2 for a few weeks with 4870CF and 4870X2. The Crossfire Sideport has nothing to do with this, as it's only a connection between the cards.

---

I know, remember I called it a DRM ROM chip? I also complained about it down grading Skulltrail's PCI-E's PCI-E 2.0 support back to PCI-E first Gen or 1. Either way, I wouldn't want it on an X58 when I'd planned on using at least a 4850 X2 card. But thank you very much for the info:up:

Yes, I remember now :up: Ah man, sometimes I see the day when multi-GPUs will not be driver dependant and appear as a single chip to the OS... then I wake up :( :D

This bridge is just another example of how good NV is at business, earning money for everything. And how they don't care a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about customers dealing with their non-GPU chips crap.

The worst part is that there's a crowd ready to lap it all up and probably even think of it as an 'improvement' on the X58's PCI-E capabilities, because it says Nvidia on it.

Imagine if Nvidia made a laptop, a really really thin one, and a fancy looking phone. :rofl:

I'll wait and see on the 4870x2. I think a lot of folks are leery of driver issues and quality issues, that I'll watch some testing before leaping. But, I don't think the X58 is going to be good with the NF200 on it. New chipsets get their kinks and the last thing I want to track down is some problem that has nothing to do with the X58, just because of some crazy add on chip. If AMD/ATI and Intel can both do (or will do soon) dual GPU devices based solely on plug in x16 slots then Nvidia needs to keep up or shut up.

And there is one thing always to remember, no matter how much you might love dual ANYTHING right now, 6-8 months from now you'll be staring at the newest card and drooling and wondering why you were so crazy to buy dual cards the year before. Anyone remember the dual 7900's? The industry advances quickly so sometimes picking your current poison in a single format and ditching it in 6 months is better strategy.

Anyway, Nvidia is mucking around trying to make a buck and they will end up making less than will have been worth it by mucking around. And ATI has to prove they really have it together this time around. Profiles for every game is ridiculous as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Yes, I remember now :up: Ah man, sometimes I see the day when multi-GPUs will not be driver dependant and appear as a single chip to the OS... then I wake up :( :D

This bridge is just another example of how good NV is at business, earning money for everything. And how they don't care a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about customers dealing with their non-GPU chips crap.

---

I hope the Mo$#@%fu@#ing Mother Board makers are listening to some of us.
I hope like hell they ship a no non-sense X58 board/s with one PCI-1 2.0 slot and void of any stupid crap-o-la.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I hope the Mo$#@%fu@#ing Mother Board makers are listening to some of us.
I hope like hell they ship a no non-sense X58 board/s with one PCI-1 2.0 slot and void of any stupid crap-o-la.

---

i dont think you will see a board with one pci-e 2.0 slot, i think 2 will be the minimum, remember its a highend chipset for highend boards. :up:

So we will have to wait until 2009 for mainstream chipset (P55) and mainstream boards? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingcarcas

So we will have to wait until 2009 for mainstream chipset (P55) and mainstream boards? :shrug:

---

Mainstream uses PCIe ondie on the CPU....its just coupled with a southbridge.
But yes, 2009.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

i dont think you will see a board with one pci-e 2.0 slot, i think 2 will be the minimum, remember its a highend chipset for highend boards. :up:

---

Just a wish, I know it is unlikely! As was said already, at least ship some with two slots and no nVidia crap on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowman

The worst part is that there's a crowd ready to lap it all up and probably even think of it as an 'improvement' on the X58's PCI-E capabilities, because it says Nvidia on it.

Imagine if Nvidia made a laptop, a really really thin one, and a fancy looking phone. :rofl:

---

Very sad and very true!

So is 6gb 2x3 going to be an optimal format for Nehalem? If there are 6 memory slots 2 for each mem channel then it seems it would make sense to either populate 2 slots at a time and fill each channel up to it's dual capacity or else fill 1 slot for each channel.

Trying to sort this out.

Anemone, it will be better to fill each channel with just one module to keep Command Rate at 1T.

ty :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doompc

Anemone, it will be better to fill each channel with just one module to keep Command Rate at 1T.

---

you can run 1T even when you have 2 modules on one channel, at least on the X38/X48. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

you can run 1T even when you have 2 modules on one channel, at least on the X38/X48. :yepp:

---

Haven't 1T always worked even with a single module? I remember it did back in the s939 days. I have read that Intels current 1T aren't the same as AMD's back then. This could matter little, but have T1 ever had anything to do with multiple modules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphiel

Haven't 1T always worked even with a single module? I remember it did back in the s939 days. I have read that Intels current 1T aren't the same as AMD's back then. This could matter little, but have T1 ever had anything to do with multiple modules?

---

It's not the same because Intel uses faster larger cache setups. Then if that fails, Intel uses Smart Cache and Smart Memory Access. 1T or 2T just is not that critical on Core 2 of any kind. These features almost remove most of the negative effects of Intel's FSB.

Nehalem is supposed to have even faster cache and less of it since large Caches also removed dependence on the FSB. No FSB means less cache is needed.

well, the entire point of cache is that you hope that the majority of your data is in your cache which is one die so you don't have to go off die and search for it in memory. That's where prefetching came in for Intel

You said that if the larger cache failed, then they'd use smart cache. but the only thing that smart cache was...was the ability to divide the L2 cache up among the cores.So i don't see how that would take over if your data wasn't in memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuji

well, the entire point of cache is that you hope that the majority of your data is in your cache which is one die so you don't have to go off die and search for it in memory. That's where prefetching came in for Intel

You said that if the larger cache failed, then they'd use smart cache. but the only thing that smart cache was...was the ability to divide the L2 cache up among the cores.So i don't see how that would take over if your data wasn't in memory.

---

True but I meant failed as in couldn't hold all of the data. Then there's using it to assist new features that aren't even talked about much. Running two OS simultaneously, encryption, safety features and etc..... Just look at Vista sucking up CPU cycles and RAM. It eats up cache as well.

Little exposure again :clap:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...m/WPrime_G.jpg

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCornell

From the incident before, I'm not posted any benches results anymore ... :shrug: This SS just exclusively shows only on XS :rofl:
Just a little preview of Gainestown hope enough :clap:
Just reminder, the CINEBENCH R10 bench is impressive :up:

This SS below with VISTA 64bit + 20Gb DDR3 ECC + Gainestown 3.06GHz*2
CpuZ codename has wrong detection to Bloomfield ...
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...inestown_0.jpg

...

---

Only 17Ghz NB :p:

You need a wider task manager :eek: