All I have seen first hand are the Bloomfields. I don't have any hard data on the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
BTW, I'm staring at a couple Bloomfields, but no boards to run em. ;)
Printable View
All I have seen first hand are the Bloomfields. I don't have any hard data on the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
BTW, I'm staring at a couple Bloomfields, but no boards to run em. ;)
You bring the chips, I'll find the boards..;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Punch a hole in them and wear them in a necklace at some geek convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Count the number of people who recognize them and cry on the spot. :rofl:
You are 2 mins from being permabanned from XS for that statement!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
One of you emailled me this ... http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...136390#p136390
I am getting famous on AMDZone ... I actually like their compliments :)
lovely gentleman ...
Wait to see Nehalem properly programmed, leaked CPUs are not "ready".
who?
Your utube link was to a boxing match..:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
As to the comments at AMDZone, do we listen to the whining of nonbeleivers?
The Kentsfields surpassed expectations, and so did the Yorkfields.
I just got a harpertown rig up and running and no complaints from me on what it is doing at stock voltages at all.:up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
:ROTF:
who?
Good one though!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
So i'm guessing that it will launch after like the 6th stepping?Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Core 2 launched around stepping 6 and i think Penryn was close.
How's the DP Nehalem doing? Word has it that it's been delayed until 2009?
Better than nothin :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Better than Nehalem desktop :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
I don't think I've ever wanted a 'fast forward' button for real life since I was a kid, but this thing makes me want one again.
:(
wow running fast, looking good JC
It's quite alright. Those gentleman are rather...dilusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I'm sure if someone got them to try a Nehalem, they'd buy it on the spot :D
edit: Dear god, that thread is terrible. It's like a rational person's worst nightmare.
its amdzone... what did you expect, its the hardest core of amd fanboys. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
My favourite is how 45nm K10s are supposed to get 15-20% IPC, while they say Nehalem is basicly nothing. Its a rerun of the barcelona launch and the core 2. I´m amazed they havent claimed the Nehalem systems are stolen shanghais :rofl:
I went and looked at the original Conroe first benchmarks on Techreport.. And man, the comments were filled with that exact kind of nonsense you see in that thread. The rigs were locked for viewing, so they were probably really running DP Opterons in there. :shrug::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Quote:
I was thinking the same thing. I have a feeling Intel "secretly" set this up.
It's like AMD processors come with free tin foil hats in the package. It almost makes me ashamed to own AMDs. :mad:Quote:
Also I am not buying that Anand just walked up and grabbed two to benchmark, this for me is an obvious Intel ploy and Anand is being used a a tool (willingly). If Intel didn't sanction this, then Intels lawyers would be on Anand so fast it would be laughable.
I really, really wanted to quote some AMD guys because they are so hilarious, but unfortunately they deliver in every thread. I could not decide which one to quote. Really, thank you for the laughs.
Movieman give him those damn motherboards already, before he actually decides to go with the necklace-idea. :yepp:
Though, they are right to some extent when it comes to single-threaded performance, we do not really know much about nehalem's performance, so it'd be nice if you could run more single-threaded benches...
Do not worry about single threaded performance, it is better than Penryn... I can t say more yet ... but 8M L3 with the best prefetcher ever, this rocks.
since we are here, let s give you some new vocabulary...
We call:
L3 is LLC (Last Level Cache)
L2 is MLC (Middle Level Cache)
L1 is FLC (first Level Cache)
Get use to those terminologies, they will be soon everywhere.
I ll add more over time.
who?
Is it like Phenom, does each core have its own multiplier that we can change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
well, it is like Itanium ... :rofl: This is the like this for 10 years at Intel :clap:Quote:
since we are here, let s give you some new vocabulary...
We call:
L3 is LLC (Last Level Cache)
L2 is MLC (Middle Level Cache)
L1 is FLC (first Level Cache)
or think about the 1st Pentium 4 Extreme Edition ... it was already using this names internally. Now that it is going main stream, we will push for it externally.
if you listen to AMD, they invented the wheel ... did they?
1st x86 processor with Memory controler on dice: 386SX .... hummmm hummmm
We are not going to have the issues that Phenom has with its fixed ratios ... (They invented fixed ratio???? )
It was designed to scale from Laptop to server, in every dimension , cache size, number of cores, memory type, so, i let you guess why there are no issue ...
remember, I can't speak much yet.
but everything you need will be there :up:
Just kidding, ok?
who?
I didn't mean 'is it like Phenom' as in 'will it be disappointing and slow', I was just referring specifically to the feature where Phenom owners can go and change each core's individual multiplier and run them at different frequencies. Maybe I'm a sucker for gadgets but I think that's pretty cool. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
now, think about the concequences of allowing the change of frequency under windows ... a "bad" hacker can find it funny to modify the multipliers to 200x ... what happen then ... :shakes: The best Virus ever? :eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
That is a cool but deadly feature :shrug:
Just some of my personal thinking ...:cool:
who?
Please tell me that you were kidding,right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
nop!
You can t compromise the safety of a platform for the good of the OC community... Make sense, no?
who?
I m confused about two things. You speak from the proverbial "we" when you talk from intel. Are you part of intel... or do you speak for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Secondly, criticizing overdrive, in that it could be a virus... is pretty ridiculous logic. We better take down riva tuner, because someone might over clock our gfx and melt them.. or lock all hardware because they may make our harddrives spin so fast they melt...
but the AOD being a tool for virus.. what would happen.. change the multi to 200, and it wouldnt boot. And all that would happen is you would reset, and go into bios and put it back to default , if it didnt do it already... So i don't really follow that logic. How nehalem is a Safer chip...
He works for Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
in what capacity... as that virus comment... demonstrates little understanding of cpu clocking..Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Well, if that's the case.. Then any software overclocking tool ought to be buried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I'm just talking about in general, whether changeable in BIOS or otherwise.
IMHO it is unlikely as well. Be warned though, not impossible. The hack he's talking is while the computer is running, not while it is shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
I have mine on my Gigabyte disabled. My Foxconn has one that runs in Auto-mode better than the one on my old ABit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
You could do the same with any bus on the system though. And i dont think anything worse than a hard lockup is likely to happen in either case anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
True!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Oh, I dont think it isnt possible, I mean you could theoretically pull off that hack, background launch the app, and change the multi's.. but he s saying that a x200 multi would kill the computer.. and i just don't see how. Maybe if you could change the voltage, and also disable all the safegaurds, but computer would just powerdown before that happened, and reset in bios. So i dont see how that is the most dangerous virus ever, or what the point of it would be. There are many more effective ways to disable a computer. And the advantages to having cores being clocked that way far outweigh that disadvantage, I know for myself, i sure wish i could clock my cores with a tool like that :) but i digress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Again, true. Sure the X200 is unrealistic but I don't he meant X200 literally. As was already said and I agreed with the computer would lock up or even reboot if nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
wprime is good benchmark for multicores CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
watch here:
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...24&articID=809
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/3...rocepu6.th.png
You find me a WORKING board that can boot these, to keep, and I'll give you one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
No joke.
Nice deal I must say ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
You might want to change your sig, I think we have members from Italy here :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
So who wants to guess how much the X58 Asus Maximus will be :eek:
Perkam
Mmm, I don't care? :p: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
dont worry next game he will see plenty pics of russians. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
hmm i dont think X58 will cost more then current top of the line enthusiast mobos.
250-300€ max. (maybe some über limited special editions will go beyond the 300/350€ mark)
And how many diddly bobs will it have? Maybe it will come with an add-in soundcard the size of an 8800GTX and a glow-in-the-dark bobbing head doll on the northbridge cooler. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I want something simple and clean this time.. I'm tired of all these ultra-expensive 'enthusiast' boards that really offer little but trinkets. What happened to affordable boards crammed with actual useful features?
They are extinct :(:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Let me see what I can do..:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
well, this is a risk to take ... I am not ready to take this risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
you see that from a OC point of view. with this feature enable, you are 10 lines of code away from freezing. You may dissagree on use of this API hook, but I totally dissagree when somebody write a virus, it does not stop them from doing it ... grrrrrrrr
I am looking at ways to do it safely, like a push button has to be pushed to make the hardware change its ratio via software. When you have an product like Core 2, you don t want to expose yourself to one hacker in his garage, do you understand my point?
It is not showing "little understanding" to put priority into safety.
I am the extreme guy, i try my best to find compromise, I just can't give a loaded gun to a hacker ...
Please see the big picture, it make sense!
Francois Alias who?
To answer an other post, I always speak for myself here, not for intel.
I think what you have to understand here at Xs is that there are many personalities and ways of seeing things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
People will ask you questions that for different reasons you may not be able to answer.
I think the best way to deal with those is to just say "I'm sorry but I can't answer that at this time" and people then understand to drop the point.
I have friends that work for Intel that I ask questions of but I have set it up with them that if I ask a question that would put them in an uncomfortable position to just say " I can't go there"
No one's feelings are hurt and the friendships continue.
I know I don't take it personally.
The only time you get a bad feeling is when someone answers you with an evasion. Better to be honest and say "sorry, but I can't" and let it die there.
Now, where's the pics of a dual socket Nehalem working at 4000mhz?
C'mon, I know you got one..:rofl:
Can't be as bad as the AMDZone posting .... hehehehe
Francois
No, here you get Xtreme Curiousity, there it's Xtreme Whining..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I understand what your saying its a vulnerability for an exploit that could, cause a system halt. But so would any tuning software, riva tuner for gfx etc...as well, like BrowncoatGR said, the same could be done by altering FSB. And 10 lines of code can just as easily block it, if someone were to create that malicious code, as well, the OS is more a vulnerability, than that. A virus that shut down the comp, would be annoying yes, but easily detectable, and not sure on the bio's but could easily be blocked by adding some bios code, to block that function, if it were to happen, simple on off switch in the bios. The advantages to clocking systems in that way, is useful, especially for the average user, and for system boosts. I use intel currently and with nehalem approaching, will most likely continue to do so, but if nehalem had this feature would i complain..not on your life, that would be amazing. A cpu the tests its max stability, then dynamicly changes multis based on load would be amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Again, i understand the vulnerability, and I was ahead of myself in questioning your knowledge, Je suis désolé.
But with a million exploits out there, and the main motivation since the advent of mainstream internet use being, to make money, not havok, I see this as a very very low threat vulnerability, verses, lets say, the good ol backdoor days ^^
Do you dare do that!! That pic is beatiful plus revenge is sweet - Buffon from hero to villan!Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
SLI on X58 or Skulltrail 2 and I'll be happy :)
I would expect Bloomfield boards to cost less than P45 boards... the X58 chipset is actually much simpler and should therefore cost much less than a P45 chip. It all depends on how Intel prices it of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
The components for the rest of the board will be pretty much the same except for the socket.
The only added complexity is the triple channel DDR3 which early reports indicated might require an 8-layer PCB however, I expect by launch the boards will be back to 6-layers. An added benefit of DDR3 is in-flight compensation for trace-length delay so the constraints on equalizing trace lengths for DDR3 are not as strict as they were for DDR2 giving board manufacturers more flexibility with regards to layout which should allow them to maintain 6-layer PCB's in spite of the dramatic increase in traces to route.
All of this won't stop ASUS from trying to soak early adopters however! :rolleyes:
Sure if there are 51, 52 and 55's. Users in this market made all the manufacturers confident in overcharging for the motherboards. X58 will be priced higher than X48 and yes I hope I'm wrong. Then there will also be something like a X55 that falls in-between the mid and high end products.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtualrain
My guess is we'll see $300-$375 for Bloomfield boards.
That is just what my gut tells me.
With regards to the concept of a virus that could be created specifically to make peoples multi/fsb/whatever change simply to annoy the user ... well ... I think any coder who knows enough to do that would get far more gain from doing what most virus writers do these days, spyware. :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing with people isn't really what viruses are about these days, its more about profit.
In other news, someone can (could?) already cause machines to reboot right now! Have you ever randomly chosen an IC in setfsb and told it to set an fsb or something? It isn't pretty.
t
Thanks very much JC,
I wonder if you have found any issue in the process.
Metroid.
Drwho? - how is the "Skulltrail 2" coming along? Can you tease us with some details? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Actually, you appear to have dodged the question posed with an alarmist diversion. Classic The_Ghost rebuttle 101...
(Too caustic?)
Thanks for sharing the benchs JC :up:
I saw no overclocking in the locked multi Bloomfields till now. Don't know if its due to early stage of motherboards or something else. Does anybody know anything about that?
How about temps, are they really hotter than Penryn at stock clocks?
I guess they locked the engineering samples to stop people from getting impressions from the very early versions. I think I read that somewhere.
Oh, and given that there are integrated memory controllers, QPI links and the like I think it would be strange for them to not be hotter!
That's why instead of Fines, the Sum-Bee-yotches should go to Jail and be shacked with Dewayne or Ricky Bobby types. Stealing more than $400 is a Felony, then it should be treated as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by taemun
Nehalem is going to Rock be it in single or multi threaded. I think too many folks are reading wayyyyyyyy too much into early boards and unoptimized software.
I might not do a Nehalem until next winter or so lol! Still can't wait to see what others do with their's.
Nehalem is designed electrically for 45nm Metal, penryn wasnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
how was penryn not designed for the high-k dielectric?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Based on tick-tock,
the process comes first and then a new architecture that is built on that process.
Penryn is just a die shrink of Conroe with a few enhancements. It was originally designed for 65nm. Nehalem is designed from the ground-up to be built on the 45nm process technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
Even if they've enhanced it there's supposed to be gains from designing it ground up for the already tried and true process technology.
You've got it backwards. Penryn is a derivative of the Merom family. Merom was designed specifically for 65nm and Penryn is a "die shrink" with minor updates for the 45nm node. Nehalem is designed specifically for 45nm and Westmere is the derivative process shrink of Nehalem on 32nm. Similarly, Sandy Bridge is specifically designed for 32nm and so on and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
and how much is power wat energy PC system for your Nehalem?
Exactly... and there are numerous reports that when Intel caught wind of AMD doing a native quad on 65nm, they simply admitted they couldn't do it. An interesting statement given the struggles that AMD has had but at the same time a bit of endorsement to AMD's engineering to have been able to pull it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
At any rate, I think both AMD and Intel will demonstrate that 45nm is "the" process at which a native quad becomes really viable.
It wasn't when they caught wind of it, it was several months after AMD unveiled the barcelona design. And Intel's statement was more along the lines that it would be foolish to attempt it rather than they couldn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtualrain
Considering the trouble AMD had getting this product to market, Intel was more or less correct it would appear. The whole advantage of Intel's MCM approach is simplicity, yield (costs), and time to market -- all of which has proven to be quite effective so far.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=201804316Quote:
"At 65nm the die would be too big to hold four [Intel] cores and it would be so expensive it would not make sense," said Bryant. "Our 45nm process technology will allow us to do a monolithic quad-core design," she added.
Yeah i remember the article with Pat Gelslinger (sp) saying that it was economical to do it for Intel. Maybe 45nm yields are good enough to actually make a monolithic quad core.Quote:
Originally Posted by virtualrain
It would seem that based on the limited time we've seen tick-tock in motion that the ticks's get the monolithic dies and the tocks don't.
Presler was a tick, and dual die dual core.
Conroe was tock and it was monolithic dual core.
Penryn was tick and dual die quad core.
Nehalem is tock and is monolithic quad core.
Because the ticks don't matter as much as the tocks. The ticks are just used to get the manufacturing process mature enough for the tocks.
Although how they're going to do the 8 core Nehalem on the 45nm process and make it affordable is beyond me.
yeah so although it's a die shrink of Merom, it was designed for High-K. The whole point of doing that was so that by the time Nehalem rolled around, the 45nm High-K process was mature enough to make a larger die without taking too big a hit on yields. I don't see how because of that Penryn wasn't designed for High-K dielectrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
I also heard that the lithography doesn't actually get the transistor to 45nm and that they have to do some etching to get it down to the 45nm mark.
Why would you say that. I am not a member of AMDZone, but i have frequented the site. A few of their poster are far more intelligent than any one here. (no offence intended). Some would refer this site to being far to Intel biased- No big deal though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Kindest Regards
Penryn is a shrink of Merom/Conroe, while I suspect there is opportunity to design to the 45 nm strengths, the basic circuit design, transistor expectations, etc. were fundamentally rooted in the 65 nm process technology. Same concept about K8 and 65 nm Brisbane, K8 was initially founded in the 130 nm node.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
The most fascinating thing about Intel's 45 nm technology is the performance of the PMOS, and if you read up in the literature (basic design stuff, the IBM Journal site has some good info there), the ratio of PMOS to NMOS performance affects the overall approach.
For example ... IBM maps out beta, the ratio of PMOS to NMOS as they designed their circuits for the Power 6 (a ground up design)
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/516/curran.pdf
As such, deisgners fashion the geometry and layout of their transistors with this information in mind. Since Nehalem has gone modular and totally reworked, it is expected the designers will leverage the PMOS performance to the fullest advantage.
This is what Gelsinger meant when he said
I am not sure how Intel will ultimately use this, based on die size, transistor count, etc. Anandtech showed a 10% increase in performance for a much larger total die than current Yorkfield. I suspect they are leveraging it to keep thermals low at the same clock... not sure.Quote:
"The Core micro architecture is built for 45nm and 65nm. In the case of Nehelam, it is natively architected to take full advantage of 45nm,"
"In that sense it is really going unlock the full potential of that process technology's capabilities beyond what the Penryn was capable of doing."
i think i see what you're talking about.
What you're saying is that Intel changed the transistor ratios for Nehalem as opposed to just changing lambda (design rules)?
But wouldn't they have to have changed the L and W for Penryn anyway? For a simple PMOS process, the length of the transistor is determined by first level lithography and the width, second.
So since they nave a 45nm pitch, they would have had to change the L and W anyway. Had they taken Conroe and brought it directly to 45nm, then yeah, you can just change Lambda, but that's not the case.
I guess what i'm wondering is what you wanted me to read on the PDF.
I'm asking all these questions because i'm doing a VLSI lab right now.
More or less... I have made a hobby out of reading and tracking the device physics as the industry as progressed. PMOS is typically a 'slower' transistor (all things being equal) than an NMOS transistor. This is because the majority charge carriers for a PMOS device are holes where as NMOS they are electrons. The effective mass of holes often out weight that of electrons, so the hole mobility tends to be lower (hence slower transistors).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
In short, take what you can get... if your PMOS is weak, then you rework your circuits to use as few PMOS as possible or you account for the difference in the design of the bitcell and transistor geometry (notice the gate length between PMOS and NMOS are different in the IBM paper I referenced above, PMOS being shorter to account for the fact that PMOS is slower)....
It isn't that Intel turned to the beta as a major component, it is that they developed a good PMOS transitor which the Nehalem designers can augment around and take advantage of....
Jack
i thought the mobility of the holes decreased due to the fact that it has to take the area of another hole...or something like that. I don't remember much of device physics.
The mobility also depends on the doping of the region...just thought i'd throw that in there.
So you said that the goal was to use the least amount of PMOS as possible.
However, CMOS is Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor which would imply PMOS and NMOS. The whole idea behind CMOS is that both PMOS and NMOS have their strengths. For an Inverter, the PMOS is better with the output high and the NMOS for the output low correct? (it might be reversed). But when you remove PMOS don't you start violating the mere definition of CMOS?
I've never done CMOS processing before so i don't really know it from a physical process standpoint rather more of theoretical from the exposure to it right now.
Understanding the physics of this is hard to explain in a text based forum, people often think of holes as a charged particle, say a positive charge like a proton. This is an incorrect way of thinking about it. The most simplistic form is to think of a hole as a 'missing electron', however, in metals (and semiconductors), electrons are delocalized over the lattice and here is where all heck breaks loose -- it is a difficult concept to wrap your brain around. To be more correct, a hole would be better thought of a somewhat localized region of deficient electron density.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
From this concept we can then begin thinking about dispersion curves with the interaction of holes with the lattice, which because they are less localized than say the electron equivalent, interact differently. The end result is the hole mobility within any given material is less than that of the electron within the same material. Though the dispersion curve for holes lower the mobility, solid state physics has adopted collecting terms into an effective mass... holes have no true mass really, but the behavior of the mobility can be expressed (and naturally falls out) as a mass, which is always larger than electrons. It is easier to move a marble than a bowling ball.
There are many advantages that I have read as to why CMOS is preferred over just NMOS, part in due to what you rhetorical question above ... while I understand the physics, I am not completely well versed on the actual design side ... constructing an inverter in CMOS has an advantage that it consumes much less power overall. (NOTE: I had to cheat to make sure I got this right ... a good text on this subject is Solid State Electronic Devices by B. Streetman and S. Banerjee)
Jack
The thing is, This site is pro Intel. Intel have the performance crown so this site will swing to Intel. Just look at the number of people watching the AMD section compared to the Intel section. Now I don't know if you are a fanboy or not, If you are you will not understand this, If not you will. When AMD was murdering Intel In the p-4d vs x2 days the ratio of AMD and Intel viewers was the exact opposite of today, This alone should be compelling evidence that around here most people are performance biased. If AMD came out with k11 tomorrow and it kicked Intel's ass around here would swing to AMD again.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunge100
Remember, These posters on AMD zone that are smarter than most of us folks are adults that are emotionally attached to A large company to the point that they will attack you if you happen to mention any thing bad about said company. How can a fanboy be smart?
CINEBENCH R10 continue :clap:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...oomfield_6.jpg
...
35C idle, 40C load..nice :)
RightMark Memory Analyzer v3.80 :shrug:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...oomfield_8.jpg
...
Still doubt of its accuracy though :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Simply put, in the example of the inverter, using an NMOS transistor for pull up wouldn't bring the output to the voltage of the power rail. The NMOS would act as a resistor, drawing and wasting power. The PMOS on the other hand would bring it up all the way (effectively a short) resulting in no static power dissipation. That's the big advantage of CMOS, not only that it usually ends up being one of the fastest options and the easiest to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Pass transistor logic is supposedly a popular scheme involving only the usage of NMOS transistors...but all of my practical experience (in a simulator) with it has shown me that it's a nuisance.
If you touch the heatsink under load, how it feel? Unreasonable with the showed temps?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
I think this one way more accurate ;) , furthermore the software is not ready yet ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...Nehalem/99.jpg
...
> JCornell
Thanks a lot for sharing these information :up:
Do you see something on the mainboard that looks like a clock generator ?
(it should be near to a quartz, not far from the cpu and chipset) ;)
Franck, why is the CPU code name listed as "Nehalem" instead of "Bloomfield"?
Sorry to jump in with that question like that but it's been bugging me for a bit.
yeah you're right, it should be Bloomfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Nehalem is the name of the micro-architecture.
There could be two reasons.. #1 ES chips are just called Nehalem, or #2 CPU-Z just doesn't recognize it properly yet. Notice how the 'FSB' is 'quad pumped' by default even though there are no such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
we dont know the Tjmax of nehalem, so each program is not worth the effort. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
e.g. realtemp take 95°C (supposed penryn TJmax) vs 105°C TJmax core temp takes, thats why you see 36°C vs 46°C. ;)
for penryn i belive the 95°C more then the 105°C, cause some guys measured it. :)
For nehalem its a compleat different story, but maybe you have a IR thermometer, so you can test it. Just look at the realtemp thread, of how to do it. :up:
You're running single channel with 1 stick of DDR3 1066 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
If so , the results are impossible.If not , the IMC has low efficiency.
Option 3 : memory is running at 1600MHz in single channel mode.
Which one ?
Well, this is IMC, dual channel DDR2 800..
http://www.isarapix.org/pix70/1214415744.png
So, if that's single channel, uh. :eek: Either eye-popping or my setup is borked.
I'd bet on Single channel 1600MHz LOL! Wasn't all 3 channel capable of something like 26GB?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
All the SS I've seen of Nehalem have been in single channel mode so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Why I don't know but they are.
Maybe a bug or perhaps someone is keeping the systems handicapped until they want the real capabilities of this beast to be shown.
Yea, I heard in the neighborhood of 26GB also.
Cringes at the thought of writing the check for 6 sticks(or more) of DDR3-1333 ECC for a dual socket Gainstown..:rolleyes:
Triple-channel 1333 will be capable of 32GB/s.
Ha, Movieman, didn't you see the dual socket motherboards with 18 DIMM slots? ;)
Yea, I saw them..A waste for my needs..1 gig a core more than covers anything I need..Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Total of 32GB but usable 26GB just like 9 out 12 right now, right? Current DDR3 boards does 21GB and look how much is usable? Or am I misisng something?Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
well, Nehalem is the product name throughout the in fab manufacturing process. It only becomes Bloomfield or Gainstown in assembly.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
Is there any information on whether there will be improvement in games at max details.
More specifically Nehalem refers to a single core, Bloomfield and Gainestown refer to the processor, consisting of four Nehalem cores in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Single channel DDR3-1600 has peak theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s which is exactly what Rightmark is reporting. DDR3-800 in dual channel also has the same bandwidth though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Ok maybe I'm confused, but thought Nehalem referred to the core, which in this case starts as a quad core, and Bloomfield refers to the whole platform, what people are referring to as the X58, only it's the X58+1366 Nehalem that make a "Bloomfield" platform?
Probably I'm wrong like usual, but that was how I understood the names.