Nehalem-EP......BLOOMFIELD

[bowman]

Excellent! I thoguht it was only the 3.2 bloomfields that would be avail q4

Seems the FUD did its job.. FudZilla and other sites have been reporting this 'only extreme edition this year' and 'LGA 1366 will only be extreme edition, and only LGA 1366 will overclock' so many times now that I guess people are starting to believe it. Maybe LGA1160 won't overclock, but LGA1366 will definitely be affordable by any enthusiast in 2009, if not already this year.

Let's say it again, the roadmaps have been clear as crystal since April and confirmed several times recently. Three price brackets, the ones that Q9450, Q9550 and some QX processor are currently filling, will launch this year. It's also been said by some site (TweakTown I think it was, and yeah, I know.. TT..) that it might come 'earlier' than we expect in Q4 as opposed to December 31.

[Donnie27]

Seems the FUD did its job.. FudZilla and other sites have been reporting this 'only extreme edition this year' and 'LGA 1366 will only be extreme edition, and only LGA 1366 will overclock' so many times now that I guess people are starting to believe it. Maybe LGA1160 won't overclock, but LGA1366 will definitely be affordable by any enthusiast in 2009, if not already this year.

Let's say it again, the roadmaps have been clear as crystal since April and confirmed several times recently. Three price brackets, the ones that Q9450, Q9550 and some QX processor are currently filling, will launch this year. It's also been said by some site (TweakTown I think it was, and yeah, I know.. TT..) that it might come 'earlier' than we expect in Q4 as opposed to December 31.

Black Friday

[Kingcarcas]

I'm not quite grasping your point... are you trying to say that while we currently don't know what the max Ghz Intel will release the new Nehalem @, it probably can't be faster than the current 3.2Ghz already known?

Knowing Intel always takes a conservative stance, which coincidentally has been proven by the EXTREMELY ingenious people here and elsewhere by overclocking them. Somehow, since nobody has officially posted Ghz in excess of 3.2gig, it somehow impossible or wrong to discuss them?




-Xoulz

You are responding to a guy who has been banned

[virtualrain]

From another thread I am wondering: Is it confirmed that there will be <600$ Nehalems in Q4 2008?

This is what we know about this year's Nehalem's products...

[villa1n]

This is what we know about this year's Nehalem's products...

p1 needs to come down to 499 ^^ But i m losing hope that deneb, or any of the 45nm k10 iterations will provide any market pressure on intel to lower prices in the next 6-8 months

thanks for clarifying though, i ve read so much stuff back and forth, good to have something solid. Time to plan out the next machine

[bowman]

p1 needs to come down to 499 ^^ But i m losing hope that deneb, or any of the 45nm k10 iterations will provide any market pressure on intel to lower prices in the next 6-8 months

thanks for clarifying though, i ve read so much stuff back and forth, good to have something solid. Time to plan out the next machine

Why bother, the only difference is the multiplier..

I have a feeling the lowest priced one will have enough headroom as it is, a sky-high multiplier and a low reference clock should give us lots of room to expand.

[villa1n]

Why bother, the only difference is the multiplier..

I have a feeling the lowest priced one will have enough headroom as it is, a sky-high multiplier and a low reference clock should give us lots of room to expand.

well and binning but it remains to be seen how far past stock we can push these guys yet :P I m sure your right though.

[Shintai]

Performance should be either lower or higher. 850 or 540$.

[Horus´]

rofl L3 is slowish

[Jacky]

...

I love your useful and enlightening posts.

JCornell thanks for testing. Could you give us a preview of its single core performance, maybe start your own thread in the news/intel section?

[Horus´]

I love your useful and enlightening posts.

Thx for letting me know this usefull and enlightening opinion of yours

[BrowncoatGR]

Performance should be either lower or higher. 850 or 540$.

So does the L3 run at the same speed as the cores?

Pricing seems to be better than i expected. Benches so far havebeen quite promising, but we haven't seen any meaningful workloads tested yet.

[Shintai]

So does the L3 run at the same speed as the cores?

Pricing seems to be better than i expected. Benches so far havebeen quite promising, but we haven't seen any meaningful workloads tested yet.

Yes

[BrowncoatGR]

It's on a separate clock and power domain. so, it will have to be based off the main reference clock just like the CPU, but both will have their own independent ratios.

How bout now?

[Shintai]

How bout now?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3326&p=5

The L3 cache is quite possibly the most impressive, requiring only 39 cycles to access at 2.66GHz. The L3 cache is a very large 8MB cache, 4x the size of Phenom's L3, yet it can be accessed much faster. In our testing we found that Phenom's L3 cache takes a similar 43 cycles to access but at much lower clock speeds (2.0GHz). If we put these numbers into relative terms it takes 21.5 ns to get a request back from Phenom's L3 vs. 14.6 ns with Nehalem's - that's nearly 50% longer in Phenom.

And thats for a 2.66Ghz CPU ofcourse.

[BrowncoatGR]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3326&p=5



And thats for a 2.66Ghz CPU ofcourse.

Hmm looks like i might be wrong if Anand actually tested it or had reliable info on it , but seems to me Anand has a mistake there. Isn't cache latency always measured in relation to core frequency(even when it's async that should be 43 core cycles and not 43 NB/cache cycles)?

[Shintai]

Hmm looks like i might be wrong if Anand actually tested it or had reliable info on it , but seems to me Anand has a mistake there. Isn't cache latency always measured in relation to core frequency(even when it's async that should be 43 core cycles and not 43 NB/cache cycles)?

Hmm? Its for the cache to react and fetch data and send it back.

[BrowncoatGR]

Hmm? Its for the cache to react and fetch data and send it back.

How would you measure that directly at the L3? You would have to measure how long it takes for the core to fetch the data.

[Shintai]

How would you measure that directly at the L3? You would have to measure how long it takes for the core to fetch the data.

Ofcourse, but its the cache that does the wast majority of the work and you can calculate the cycles used there when you know its speed. Same way we do with main memory. On a 2.5Ghz Phenom it might actually have used 53-54 CPU cycles.

If you compare CPU-Z cycle measurement they varies with others. Sciencemark would say 12 or 13 cycles depending on stride size for a yorkfield.

[azza21]

Looks like my next purchase will be an Intel cpu
When is the cpus meant to be hitting the market? November/december time?

[bowman]

Looks like my next purchase will be an Intel cpu
When is the cpus meant to be hitting the market? November/december time?

'Q4', TweakTown said to expect it 'sooner than expected' whatever that means..

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/9583/i...pei/index.html

While Intel did not mention anything about clock speeds to us at all, word from other press around Computex is that it could be running at 3.2GHz and it could be ready to rock and roll sooner than expected but you didn’t read that here.

[mstp2009]

I can confirm the CPUs are effectively done. They could be rolled out in under 1 month if Intel wanted to.

The X58 chipset and getting mobos for them are the biggest issue.

[bowman]

I can confirm the CPUs are effectively done. They could be rolled out in under 1 month if Intel wanted to.

The X58 chipset and getting mobos for them are the biggest issue.

That's great to hear.

We've only heard about Bloomfield desktop chips so far - will there be UP and DP Xeons around too this year?

[virtualrain]

Yes

Are you suggesting that the L3 will run at core speed?

According to Kanter (RWT), the L3 would most likely run on it's own clock/power domain... and if the Phenom is any indication, it's clock/power might be tied to the IMC clock/power domain.

Although Intel has not discussed the physical design of Nehalem at all, it appears that the L3 cache sits on a separate power plane than the cores and operates at an independent frequency. This makes sense from both a power saving and a reliability perspective, since large caches are more susceptible to soft errors at low voltage. As a result, the load to use latency for Nehalem varies depending on the relative frequency and phase alignment of the cores and the L3 itself and the latency of arbitration for access to the L3. In the best case, i.e. phase aligned operation and frequencies that differ by an integer multiple, Nehalem’s L3 load to use latency is somewhere in the range of 30-40 cycles according to Intel architects.

http://www.nehalemnews.com/2008/04/w...e-nehalem.html

Cheers,
-Chris.

[virtualrain]

I can confirm the CPUs are effectively done. They could be rolled out in under 1 month if Intel wanted to.

The X58 chipset and getting mobos for them are the biggest issue.

This was my impression following Computex... it was the motherboards that were holding things up.

Any indications on branding for Nehalem?

Cheers,
-Chris.