Printable View
Intel's 32nm six-core Core i9 series processors codenamed Gulftown based on Westmere will also launch in the first quarter of 2010, the sources noted.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090723PD204.html
Also:
Clarkdale (i3), new Atom stuff in Q1.
Lynnfield (i5 / i7) this September.
Digitimes, FWIW.
:eek:
It's Gulf-Town-Zilla !! :eek:
http://www.firstuniversal.clara.net/...godzilla11.jpg
Run for your lives AMD users !!
Perkam
How is this info new? :confused: :D
I wonder what clock speeds Core i9 will run at. Should be a nice upgrade to i7 if the TDP is about 95 watts, and clock speeds are about the same as i7 now. As long as its not EE only. 8-core i9 would be even better.
8-core Sao PaoloQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs32/f/20...y_GENZOMAN.jpg
Maybe it will get released for desktops too, lets hope AMD sees the light :D
bad news...I want i9 before X-mas!
Not news... and it will probably take Magny-Cours (12 core) to beat Gulftown.
Magny Cours should go against Beckton. Sao-Paolo will probably have higher clocks than Magny-Cours(less cores-more headroom). Sao Paolo is Gulftown's competitor ,but all will depend on frequency.Both will have DDR3 memory,AMD's part will be quad channel though.
Another server product being foistered upon desktop users by Intel, I hope Turbo boost works a treat. :shrug:
I hope clock for clock will be better ( i7 vs i9) than current quads with ht. I already own a quad and it only shows a little age since it's first gen. if not, maybe I'll pick up an i7 next year for cheap.
Idk how to utilize this CPU honestly lol.
Can't wait to shave some more time off my BD re-encodes :)
Sweet, cant wait. They are 1366 as well right? So most higher end boards now should bring support for them with BIOS updates?
Will only be a slight improvement just like from 65nm core 2 and 45nm core 2, now if you want to load the cpu just run SMP folding@home on it (and join our team).Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
Personally, I'd rather see an 32nm version of Beckton on the desktop instead of this.
My $0.02...
Nehalem is powerful as it is with 8 threads, 12 will be overkill, 16 is just unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by lutjens
Perkam
Beckton is supposed to be 8 core,32nm and just 2 socket and up..Quote:
Originally Posted by lutjens
Gulftown should work in single and dual socket 1366 boards if what I hear is correct with just a bios update.
What's the matter with 16 threads?:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9...r16threads.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1604/16threads.jpg
when is beckton coming out? :D same time as westmere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I don't know. But I hear AMD will have its flag at half mass that day :rofl: :rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
Perkam
Isn't beckton to westmere as bloomfield is to nehalem?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
I had a crap nights sleep, u lost meQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
:lol: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
As far as I know Beckton is made on 45 nm, is based on Nehalem and will have 24 MB of L3 cache. It's meant for 4 to 8 socket systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Correct but I was reading one of Intels handouts and it said from "2 socket to 8 socket" systems..Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Beckton is indeed 45nm (apparently will move to 32nm at the end of 2010). What I want to see is a version of Beckton that is 32nm, and is drop in compatible with existing Socket 1366 DP boards (with the requisite BIOS update of course). Unneutered, with the full amount of L3 cache as the MP version...
....and unlocked multipliers too....:D
Strange how you and both want the exact same thing!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by lutjens
So have you won lotto yet to pay for an 8 socket system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Don't want one.. Like booze, two is my limit!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
Guys,
Westmere to Gulftown is like Nehalem to Bloomfield, a 32nm Hexacore with HT and 12MB L3, Dual QPI link ie it will work in existing single and dual lga1366 platforms. Beckton is the Nehalem-EX, 8 cores, 16 threads, 24MB of L3, Quad-Channel IMC (presumably for FB-Dimm 2) and Quad QPI links for up to 8 socket platforms.
We have to cross our fingers that there won't be any news, halway before Q1 2010 that says Gulfy won't work on S1366.:D
IMO, Intel releasing their desktop hexa-cores on S1366 is a wise move. It would be funneling the upgrade path.
And making some planning-to-upgrade enthusiast users to decide whether to wait for cheaper P55s or grab the X58. Knowing there's a hexa-core just around the corner.
I used to do f@h.Quote:
Originally Posted by Star_Hunter
I believe I contributed around 1.6M points.
If it's not much of an improvent over a q6600, then I mat just forget about upgrading in 10'. Intel needs to improve clock for clock performance, not simply adding cores most people can't use.
Thats nice, though I would like to see the clock speeds and the price, though I won't be surprised if this cost over $600.
Yeah right, like you'd turn one down if it was offered to you...:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I'm sure two bottles of vodka would test your limit pretty well.:shocked:Don't. We need our resident spammer alive and without alcohol poisoning!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I'm still a bit disappointed in Intel. They better price these well!
The only octal core processor on the market with Hyperthreading, a ton of L3 cache , and the ability to cram 8 of these behemoths into a single system with an architecture that doesn't choke them to death??Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
I think reasonable pricing is the last thing on Intel's list when it comes to these processors.
If you were referring to Gulftown, they're still going to milk them for all they're worth...because they're make for very powerful workstations and servers, and Intel knows they'll be in demand. I just hope Intel doesn't continue to hose us DP users by making us pay 3x the price as the CPU for a uniprocessor system, for what is essentially the same hardware.
Yes, how TERRIBLE that Intel will only be providing a choice amongQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
2c/4t+IGP
4c/4t
4c/8t
6c/12t
lastest-architecture CPUs for the desktop in Q1 2010.
I mean, what about the Children!!!????
:rofl:
As for Beckton / Nehalem-EX, the 8c/16t monster for 2-8+ sockets:
We remain on track to launch our Nehalem EX processor line, which is the multi-processor version of Nehalem, in the second half of the year. Nehalem EX is expected to redefine the performance standard in that segment.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1487...script?page=-1
Latest server architecture being foistered upon desktop users, thus clearly a less than optimal solution than what they could have delivered.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I'll get excited when a 32nm Quad at better stock speeds gets released.
There will be a 2c/2t + IGP for the Children. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I made a table. :D
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...lem_plan_6.png
that chart isn't accurate because there aren't same number of threads for that comparison. and i thought i3 was only for laptops no?
How did you get it to do only the Childhood Cancer project and block other programs? I'm ok with all the WCG projects except for Nutritious Rice.. I do not want to waste my electricity folding for some miraculous strain of rice that we will never use anyways. Here in America, we still use Crisco (pure trans fat), BHT, and hydrogenated oils (standardized peanut butter), etc.. and I do not see any point in spending so much energy on a miracle rice that would have been better spent on going for a variety of foods (greens, especially broccoli, carrots, sweet potatoes, etc..)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
If Gulftown ends up being just a 32nm shrink of Bloomfield with two additional cores, it should still end up slightly faster clock for clock because don't forget it's also supposed to have 12mb of L3 cache, up from 8mb on Bloomfield. It will be extremely lame if it is Extreme Edition only though.
Nah, I don't expect it to only be EE. Intel is dedicating a whole new number "i9" to it, plus it will be on 32nm (taking up roughly the same die size area as current i7's), so Intel could probably make so much more $$ on retailing different speed models of the same chip than selling it to only a few rich people.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
uhm... you do know that gulftown will come at the same or lower clocks as bloomfield and lynnfield right? it just has more cores, which honestly means squat in the desktop segment, this is a workstation/server cpu... :PQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
It's going to be fast enough to turn the corners of your mouth upwards..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
And decode a video of it at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
While cooking your dinner, talking your wife into a quickie after dinner and then shutting down the lights for the night!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by clayton
And thats on the first core..:rofl:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Oh please be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Fox
Then again, being the only i9 makes it special -> more elite -> justified higher price tag.
Hmm, maybe Intel will at least do two versions, like a 950 and a 975. The 975 would be EE, but the 950 wont, and we can buy the 950 for $400...Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
Yeah, that is what I would bet for.. except that the i9 might use higher numbers like 1150 and 1175 EE??
I'll be we'll see at least 3 speed ratings on these..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Fox
expensive, more expensive and OMG!:shocked::rofl:
this is a monster....12 threads, omg. I think, AMD must launch x6 to desktop...
I'm still beleaving more in this roadmap mentioned in a Lynnfield Review:
http://www.abload.de/img/1702311_intel_rm3or1r.jpg
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...1702311_1.html
It isn't a new roadmap (no i5, i3 brand), but why should intel change their plans, it's not necessery to launch gulftown earlier.
Edit:
@ LOE, changed it, hope it works now;)
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Same here.
Here it is. ^^
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._intel_rm3.png
It proves that the Core 2 comparison in my table is correct. :up:
Nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Unrelated and irrelevant nonsense that needlessly brings a partisan political bent to the post.Quote:
Thats what Bush said after 911 - he said SHOP, he didn't say be strong, or something like that, the moron said shop...
Don't forget it also has an additional 4mb of L3 cache which should improve clock for clock performance in various situations as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Just because some crazy somewhere in the world espouses a theory doesn't mean it has been adopted by the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Next thing you are gonna tell me they have found Atlantis. :shakes:
Some people also call this innovation... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
hihi.. think about the vantage cpu score with this gulftown.. :D
40k easy?
Ugh, it looks like Gulftown will only be in the EE-segment! No $300-400 high-end?? :mad: Well, Q2 2010 means April at the earliest, so that's light-years away from now! Core i7 would have been out for about 18 months by then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
haha you can see how they become so cynical ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
First of all, the word is "foisted".Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Please spell out PRECISELY why you believe all of these products are sub-optimal for the desktop, and EXACTLY how you would have designed them better.
How old is that slide? The Q1 (as opposed to Q2) mention in the digitimes story for the i9 is what I found interesting, and potentially news-worthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Fox
And will still be like watching paint dry when using iTunes.:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Actually I don't belive that 6-core CPU will be available only in one form. Any way, probably entire lineup of 6-core CPU will come down to the server area. There are no rumors about new socket for gulftown so it is expectable that Xeons will continue to be compatable with desktop S1366.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Fox
I never said they were all sub-optimal, spend more time reading what I write.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Intel by choosing to use 32nm to bring more cores to desktop users instead of higher clock speeds that a Quad could deliver in the same power envelope, is clearly not bringing forward the best product they easily could for desktop users.Quote:
and EXACTLY how you would have designed them better.
Do I need to explain any further why the overwhelming number of desktop users would have been better off with a 32nm Westmere Quad clocked higher than what a 32nm Westmere Hex will be?
Shrinkage doesn't automatically meen higher clockers... the % of leakage increases substansially everytime a new process arrives. So 3GHz is a barrier which after it just goes way downhill with power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Intel isn't AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
I hope it doesn't cost $1499 per CPU....
AMD needs to speed up Magny-Cours for this one alright. Bulldozer can't show up fast enough either. Bulldozer better live up to THIS:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...cture%2015.png
It will either make history or make AMD history if it doesn't. Intel's thread count is getting higher than Fugger's bed sheets!
Oh, ok.. For some reason, I thought it was an updated roadmap :am::wierd::doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Haha, sigged! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
If LOE tells you that there is an economic theory out there that could apply to the content in the thread, you could either:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
A. Respond to it because you know what the theory is
B. Respond to it because you've read up on what it is
C. Not respond to it if you don't know what it is
D. Be snobby and ignorant about and call everything he says "nonsense"
Congratulations on choosing option D :stick:
Perkam
so say i was gonna upgrade right now, should i go for a 920? or wait for a i5? but is the i5 better? im confused about all this crap. too many processors lol.
to me, it seems like i9 > i7 > i5
but why would they phase out some i7s and replace em with a crappier cpu?
there are lynnfields that will be sold under i7 and i5...
Isnt there coming a quad core with 32nm and without IG ? I want 4 or 8 cores not 6 2^n is what we want.
There are people who have theories that the moon is made of green cheese, how much of my time do you think I am going to waste on anyone espousing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Look guys, at the end of the day Intel doesn't care about you. It's a business. They exist to make money and to do this they need to best themselves and their competitors. It's obvious to me that what LOE says is correct.
Then there should be any economic text which covers this and yet there is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
Alfred Slone who was the CEO of General Motors in 1941 put the theory of "Planned Obsolesce" into there production and have used it ever since. The rest of the industry followed shortly after. This is just one well known example. look it up ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I think he used the term "built in obsolesce" tho.
I don't think it's so much planned obsolescence as the perception of such by society.
My car is a 1994 Intrepid. All the buddies are" Dave, get a new car"
Why? It serves me well, does what I need and is dependable..Ok, so I lost a brake line Monday and had to drive like a formula 1 driver for 60 yards to save my life!:rofl:
My point is that we don't need to toss things away when they are still serviceable but we choose to from either public pressure or from just having it programmed into us.
A well tuned P3-1000 w/512mb ram will do most anything you need for day to day use on a PC
A AMD X2-3800 is still an excellent machine.
We replace by choice, not by need..Excepting the gamers of course and in that case nothing that exists is fast enough for them!:rofl:
Very well said
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I still have computer gear that is over 10 years old and still working fine, but I have moved on.
Now who nows how long this gear will last for, but clearly it wasn't built for planned obsolescence and if when it first came out was built to last two or three times longer than it will, it would then be at a cost disadvantage to other products built to a standard still greater than my needs.
That is why it is so laughable that anyone could assert that modern economics is all driven by planned obsolescence and even more laughable that people come in to back up this nonsense.
Funny you mention the Dodge Intrepid. I Work for Chrysler and most of the 90's My job revolved around those LH body cars. I say keep the car, some very fine engineering if I may say so myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
As for the planned obsolescence, most of this like you say is do to Trend and "in style" by social Acceptance but it is planned none the less.
I'm looking forward to Gulftown.
My Gainestown board is supposed to take them with no issues..12 cores/24 threads....MMMMMMMMMM:D
I'm thinking it'll scale in a linear fashion : instant 50% performance jump in "some very important" apps :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Perkam
What I want to know is if there will ever be another sub $800 LGA1366 CPU. It doesn't look like it...
Why do you say that? LGA1366 may be the performance socket but surely Intel must recognize that LGA1366 wouldn't be as popular if they had launched with a $500 chip. Right now there isn't an $800 bracket, there is the $250 to $350 range which is acceptable for budget stuff, and then the next bin around $400-$500. Anything past that is a halo product and of such small volume versus the bread and butter that it doesn't count. Gulftown may be a massive upgrade compared to Bloomfield but if they market a 1P chip surely they'll have a chip in the $250 to $350 bracket at launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by algorhythm
with what? extra cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
which i need for.... what?
fyi im running my 920 with ht enabled and 3 cores disabled since it saves loads of power and gets me a higher overclock... performance is about the same as with 2 cores and ht and i see absolutely no gain whatsoever with 4 cores and ht... in any app i use... ever... :shrug:
DC projects?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Namely WCG. :D
Also with Chess programs -> You never have enough speed and cores..till chess is solved...i hope the Gulftown will come out for the 1366 socket,
because i have not see yet this will be sure!
256 threads era is near......
Do some Dc work or some encoding or PS rendering and you will see the difference..Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
What we need for a desktop and notebook is a raw performance!
I would upgrade my 920 to a Gulfy because of the better OC-ing ability, higher IPC and lower temperatures. I might disable HT because it will slightly boost threads IPC.
This will be the CPU I build my next upgrade around.. :D
I still have a problem with the terme cause it lables all technological advancements as "planned obsolescence".Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
If we stick to car analogies, a fine example is ABS... ABS tech was already there since the 1930ies but took almost 40 year to bring them to the point where they were usfull and usable in cars... so does that mean that all cars sold after 1930 where already planed to be obsolent by the companies, cause the tech was already there?
Same could be said for saftyblets, crumple zones, ESC and much more.
For myself i call this innovation, theres a new product with new technology that weren't available when the old product was build and leads to obsolesce of the old product.
Thanks for mentioning this.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
I just don't see the need for a 6 core w/ HT cpu on a desktop. Besides folding, etc, what else can benefit from that many cores? Very few games support a quad now, so whats the point? Even extreme gamers can't benefit from this improvement, at least for another 2-4 years, depending how how development goes.
I think I'll go i7 since I simply can't utilize extra cores, unless i9 is the same price or the clock for clock speed is dramatically increased. My q6600 does everything I need and more, and although I want to be extreme, I don't want to waste power either.
your basically telling me i should move to another city so that i need to drive on the highway every day to work and can then justify a beefier car cause it gets me through traffic faster :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
why should i change my way of working/living to fit the needs of my hardware?
thats not how it works... technology is supposed to aid us, not force us to do things diferently... :P
but you never stop, do you? hehehe
your title should be WCG Evangelist ;) :lol: :up:
Not at all. It all depends on your personal use. Not all chips will be 6 core and if you don't need them then don't buy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Hell, a E8600 running up at 4000 and very controlable on air will suit your uses.
And yes, I never stop.. The goals are worth the effort.:D
Blasphemy !!! :eek: Close Thy mouth and Repent foul mouthed knave !! How dare thy question the words of a cruncher !! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Crunchers need all the cores they can get as do those who require workstations and xtreme forms of multi-tasking. :p:
Though yes, those that require six cores are very few in number compared to those that don't. But then again, Intel could have beaten phenom without HT, so one can argue even that is overkill, but we still have it :)
Perkam
i never said crunchers wont want or need 6cores... i just said most people dont...
and dave said i should get 6 cores to which i replied, no i shouldnt :D
but yes, for crunching and video editing and rendering 6 cores will be sweet, and with ht this should be very very impressive...
you needed a 4 socket board for that performance only a few years ago :D
isnt it sad that cpu performance doesnt scale for normal users as it does for crunchers?
since conroe there have been barely any notably performance improvents in the cpu segment for normal end users...
think about it, whats the performance diference in a normal gaming 24/7 system of a conroe 4ghz compared to gulftown?
maybe 10% in some apps?
for crunchers, the performance improvement will be almost 600% :eek:
but for desktop usage its maybe 30% at best in some few scenarios...
i really really think both intel and amd are on the wrong way cpu development wise...
theres no way you could re-code the os and all the apps we use every day to get anywhere near the 600% improvement for a gaming 24/7 desktop scenario with gulftown vs a conroe at the same speed... some things just cant be parallelized...
we need faster cores and better ipc, not more cores...
that will benefit everybody, crunchers, servers, desktop users...