Deneb just around the corner?

[mesyn191]

I'm completely with you on this one, the problem that I have is that this chip is supposed to be the basis for all of their new cpus for the next 5 years or so and if this is all they have to offer they are in trouble.

5yr.? Source please.

I understand the arguement about threading, I do, but my concern is that we are comparing a brand new arch vs a design that is atleast 4 years old (Clawhammer -> Agena)

Its my understanding that K10 has about as much to do with K8 as C2D had to do with the PIII, strongly related/inspired by yes but not the same thing.

It would be one thing if Nelhalem was a 16/32 core chip with 64k of cache per core and it wound up peforming this well but its not, its a quad with hyperthreading and tri-channel RAM that provides zero peformance gain in multi-threaded games.

I'm sure I've seen benches where it does great in UT3 based games and that is heavily multi-threaded, AFAIK not much out there ATM to compare...

So what should we expect of lynfield? Is it going to be worse than C2D? By all accounts it should be.

Can you expand on this? I didn't know we had heard so much about Lynfield yet. Same in regards to K11 too.

This is the same arguement made about physics cards. Oh its wonderful this, oh its next-gen that. Bottom line is that it didnt deliver. Sure it may be future-proof but what good does it do if no one programs for it?

AFAIK both major x86 CPU makers are going in the same direction, just taking slightly different routes to get there, if programmers want to get performance out of either of them they won't have much choice.

Hell 64bit procesors have been around over 5 years now and we have still yet to see any widespread adaptation to the new format. So what does that say to this philosophy of "more cores?"

Historically it normally takes ~10 yr. for any major architectural changes to achieve widespread use in programming. There were similar issues when switching over from 16 to 32 bit software IIRC.