Nehalem-EP......BLOOMFIELD

[MomijiTMO]

Isn't it a bit early ?

Umm way too early. I remember people going crazy over Penryn quads expecting crazy overclocks but it didn't happen. Speculation is just that.

[Donnie27]

Umm way too early. I remember people going crazy over Penryn quads expecting crazy overclocks but it didn't happen. Speculation is just that.

I don't know about that, I don't remember a lot of folks saying something like that? This forum isn't crazy like a few others. Most estimated it would be easier to get Dual Core to 4GHz and Quad to 3.6GHz. Even when others talked about 4GHz for Quad, most folks agreed maybe with water and extra voltage.

[virtualrain]

I'm passing Nehalem and I see no point in upgrade.

10% on single core and 20% on multicore is not enough to consider me buying new : CPU,RAM,mobo and cooling.
Penryn is good enough until cheap octalcores appear which will offer more than 100% multithreaded improvements than quadcore Penryn.

Expect the performance improvements to increase significantly once motherboards have the kinks worked out. Any application that is constrained by memory performance will benefit much more with Nehalem.

Check out how your current memory is being bottle-necked by the FSB and how Nehalem's triple-channel DDR3 IMC really opens the spill-way on RAM bandwidth...

Note that Nehalem's tri-channel DDR3-1333 peak bandwidth is on par with Penryn L2 cache! (the likes of which would never be seen on Penryn with it's highly bottlenecked FSB).



Source

[Anemone]

DDR3 1333 is pretty cheap. It's the 1800-2000 stuff that gets pricey. Even if the advanced Nehalem offers 1600, that won't be too bad for 6gb triple sticks come Q4.

[JCornell]

2.93GHz Rev.B0


...

[STaRGaZeR]

[informal]

Around 10% faster than Penryn @the same clock,not bad but not earth shattering.We need something else apart from useless Spi1m(wPrime ie. where multicore shines)

[Shintai]

Around 10% faster than Penryn @the same clock,not bad but not earth shattering.We need something else apart from useless Spi1m(wPrime ie. where multicore shines)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3326

And thats still singlechannel

[Hornet331]

anyone can upload the pic on another image hoster, photobucket is down for me since yeaterday...

[Chri$ch]

anyone can upload the pic on another image hoster, photobucket is down for me since yeaterday...

[Pinacolada]

Check out how your current memory is being bottle-necked by the FSB and how Nehalem's triple-channel DDR3 IMC really opens the spill-way on RAM bandwidth...

Note that Nehalem's tri-channel DDR3-1333 peak bandwidth is on par with Penryn L2 cache! (the likes of which would never be seen on Penryn with it's highly bottlenecked FSB).

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2991
"In our recent DDR3 vs. DDR2 review we discovered a 16% to 18% improvement in memory bandwidth with the P35 chipset. This translated into a 2% to 5% increase in real world performance in some computer applications.

This bandwith will be only for overpriced Bloomfield Nehalem,Nehalems in lower price will come in 2H 2009 and will have only dual channel.I expect Bloomfield setup to be 100-150% more expensive than Penryn setup (Intel will position Bloomfield as high-end system and it will cost) with performance around 10-20% single thread ,20-40% multithread.New drivers and better mobos won't help more than 1-3%.

So until you really need new computer or you are into multithreaded apps upgrade to quadcore Nehalem does make sense.Otherwise you will pay 100% more for about 10-20% improvement - not worth IMO for typical user it's much wiser to upgrade GPU or wait for cheap SSDs.
Quadcore penryn is good enough to wait till 2H 2009 for 32nm shrink where price/performance ration against Penryn will be much better.Most probably octalcores will be available then.

People are expecting marvels from Nehalem but it will be more evolution than revolution.

[Hornet331]

thx mate.

[Hornet331]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2991
"In our recent DDR3 vs. DDR2 review we discovered a 16% to 18% improvement in memory bandwidth with the P35 chipset. This translated into a 2% to 5% increase in real world performance in some computer applications.

This bandwith will be only for overpriced Bloomfield Nehalem,Nehalems in lower price will come in 2H 2009 and will have only dual channel.I expect Bloomfield setup to be 100-150% more expensive than Penryn setup (Intel will position Bloomfield as high-end system and it will cost) with performance around 10-20% single thread ,20-40% multithread.New drivers and better mobos won't help more than 1-3%.

So until you really need new computer or you are into multithreaded apps upgrade to quadcore Nehalem does make sense.Otherwise you will pay 100% more for about 10-20% improvement - not worth IMO for typical user it's much wiser to upgrade GPU or wait for cheap SSDs.
Quadcore penryn is good enough to wait till 2H 2009 for 32nm shrink where price/performance ration against Penryn will be much better.Most probably octalcores will be available then.

People are expecting marvels from Nehalem but it will be more evolution than revolution.

how can you compare fsb to QPI/IMC ?

[informal]

Shintai,Pinacolada summed it up well here:

So until you really need new computer or you are into multithreaded apps upgrade to quadcore Nehalem does make sense.Otherwise you will pay 100% more for about 10-20% improvement - not worth IMO for typical user it's much wiser to upgrade GPU or wait for cheap SSDs.
Quadcore penryn is good enough to wait till 2H 2009 for 32nm shrink where price/performance ration against Penryn will be much better.Most probably octalcores will be available then.

People are expecting marvels from Nehalem but it will be more evolution than revolution.

[Donnie27]

Shintai,Pinacolada summed it up well here:

So this isn't thread crapping,

[bowman]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2991
"In our recent DDR3 vs. DDR2 review we discovered a 16% to 18% improvement in memory bandwidth with the P35 chipset. This translated into a 2% to 5% increase in real world performance in some computer applications.

This bandwith will be only for overpriced Bloomfield Nehalem,Nehalems in lower price will come in 2H 2009 and will have only dual channel.I expect Bloomfield setup to be 100-150% more expensive than Penryn setup (Intel will position Bloomfield as high-end system and it will cost) with performance around 10-20% single thread ,20-40% multithread.New drivers and better mobos won't help more than 1-3%.

So until you really need new computer or you are into multithreaded apps upgrade to quadcore Nehalem does make sense.Otherwise you will pay 100% more for about 10-20% improvement - not worth IMO for typical user it's much wiser to upgrade GPU or wait for cheap SSDs.
Quadcore penryn is good enough to wait till 2H 2009 for 32nm shrink where price/performance ration against Penryn will be much better.Most probably octalcores will be available then.

People are expecting marvels from Nehalem but it will be more evolution than revolution.

Firstly, Bloomfield will launch in the Q9450, Q9550 and QX brackets - if you think a mainstream quad core Penryn is 'overpriced' to begin with then I guess the 2009 Lynnfield one will be too.

For me upgrading the GPU is of no use because it's an 8800GTX, it plays every single game just fine and even folds quite quickly. The GT200 is an overpriced incremental upgrade that brings nothing new to the table, just more of the same.

My CPU, on the other hand, is a 90nm AMD dual-core. Maybe it's not worth it for all your Penryn owners to upgrade, but everyone doesn't have Penryn.

[informal]

So this isn't thread crapping,

Hmm i quote another user's opinion(which btw is realistic),i don't call out any1 and you call that thread crapping?Get a grip man.I thought the Fugger's post was enough,seems not

My CPU, on the other hand, is a 90nm AMD dual-core. Maybe it's not worth it for all your Penryn owners to upgrade, but everyone doesn't have Penryn.

I agree,in that case upgrade is well worth it.

[Donnie27]

Hmm i quote another user's opinion(which btw is realistic),i don't call out any1 and you call that thread crapping?Get a grip man.I thought the Fugger's post was enough,seems not

Sorry, talking about overpriced without a price list, trying to downplay performance with only estimations, ummm, sounds like crapping to me!

[informal]

It was a quote from another user.Get it?!This is so amusing.

[savantu]

2.93GHz Rev.B0
...
...

Please post some memory scores.

[Hornet331]

Please post some memory scores.

i second that, maybe some everest scores?

[Donnie27]

It was a quote from another user.Get it?!This is so amusing.

Yes you are amusing LOL!

[Donnie27]

i second that, maybe some everest scores?

I'd like to see them as well.

But we'll still run into a problem. Unless the user is stressing the system, most of the time Bandwidth isn't a bottleneck now.

[JCornell]

i second that, maybe some everest scores?

Can't run everest, it crash while click the everest.exe

I did run CINEBENCH R10 : Rendering (xCPU)

[Hornet331]

damn would have been to good.

same with sisoft sandra?