Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmage View Post
That looks like a good article.

Given that Intel's design cycle is 5 years long, what could you possibly mean by the "since Nehalem hasn't even taped out" argument? Don't you think that the design would have been close to finalized BEFORE it has been taped out?

In the graphics card realm, the design cycles are much shorter, and the competition much fiercer, so there's a lot of misinformation spewed all the time. However, I really can't think of any time TheInq has been wrong about CPU specification information (not clock speed information... specification information).
Intel's design cycle is 4 years old.

Secondly Nehalem was designed to be completly modular , you can modify it much easily than older designs , that is you don't have to redo everything.
With this extra flexibility Intel can choose between IMC or not , integrated graphics or not , etc.

What I mean is this : FSB is out of breathing room ; you can't go over 1600MHz with ease , the technicals hurdles are staggering and the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

While it might be fine for notebooks , on desktops once the core count reaches 4 and above the limitations start to pan out.